Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire) Bill,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the counties of Gloucester, Warwick, and Worcester,' presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the questionnaire sent to Governments on forced labour by the International Labour Conference was sent to Soviet Russia; and, if so, what answer was returned?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour what, on the basis of 2,600,000 unemployed, is the total increase in the annual cost to the Exchequer and the Unemployment Insurance Fund due to the Acts of 1929 and 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Act of 1929 increased the charge on the Exchequer by about £3,500,000 per annum. The Act of 1930 increased the charge on the Exchequer by transferring to it for a period the cost of transitional benefit. At the
present time, with a live register of about 2,600,000, the cost under this head is at the rate of £23,500,000 per annum. As regards the Unemployment Fund, apart from extending the transitional period and placing the cost on the Exchequer, the Act of 1930 altered certain conditions and increased some of the rates of benefit. It is estimated that with a live register of 2,600,000, the cost of these changes would be about £13,750,000, of which approximately £8,750,000 would be included in the amount already mentioned as chargeable to the Exchequer for transitional benefit.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Taking the whole of these figures, the amount added to the Exchequer will be a total of over £30,000,000?

Mr. THORNE: Are not the figures mentioned in the question very much exaggerated?

Miss BONDFIELD: They are only estimated figures; they can only be.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But may we take it that they are actuarial figures roughly based on the Treasury figures as given in public?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: On these figures, shall we not require to borrow something like £1,000,000 a week for the Unemployment Fund, if not an increasing amount?

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the total contributions paid into the Insurance Fund by employers and employed in the coal mining industry of Great Britain during each of the past three years, the cost of benefit, and the cost of administration for the same period, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the total contributions paid into the Insurance Fund by employers and employed in the cotton industry during the past two years and the cost of benefit and administration during the same period?

Miss BONDFIELD: Estimates of the receipts and payments in respect of each of a number of groups of industries were given in a table put before the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance and issued in a Stationery Office publica-
tion (Volume II—Fifth Day's Evidence) which can be obtained by hon. Members in the usual way. I am arranging to have the table published separately as a White Paper.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of the Treasury loan to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in April, 1926, and April, 1927, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: The outstanding amounts of the Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund at the beginning of April, 1926 and 1927, were £7,177,569 and £24,650,000 respectively.

SPORTS GROUNDSMAN.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether employment as groundsman on an athletic ground attached to an industrial undertaking is treated by her Department as insurable employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: Speaking generally, such a groundsman is not insurable against unemployment. In particular cases, however, the precise nature of the work performed might have to be ascertained before a decision could be given.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is still taking

INSURED PERSONS classified as belonging to certain industries recorded as unemployed in Cornwall and Aberdeenshire at 22nd December, 1930.


—
Cornwall.
Aberdeenshire.


Insured Persons Unemployed.
Insured Persons Unemployed.


Number.
Per cent, of estimated number insured at July, 1930.
Number.
Per cent, of estimated number insured at July, 1930.


Stone mining and quarrying
139
13.1
31
4.6


Slate mining and quarrying
24
4.8
—
—


Mining and quarrying not separately specified.
51
28.3
—
—


Clay, sand, gravel and chalk pits.
1,220
24.2
—
—

TRAINING (STONE KERB-DRESSERS).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour to what extent the Ministry's scheme for training stone kerb-dressers has progressed?

steps to promote industrial transference by placing persons from the depressed areas in employment elsewhere; and how many persons were transferred in the last four weeks for which figures are available?

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. During the four weeks ended 12th January, 1931, 1,277 persons were transferred either direct or after a course of training at a centre.

Mr. BECKETT: Is any record kept of these men after they are transferred, and, if so, for how long?

Miss BONDFIELD: For as long as they keep in touch with the Exchanges.

Viscountess ASTOR.: Will the right hon. Lady say how long the Members of the Socialist party were in putting spikes into this system?

QUARRYING INDUSTRY.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour what, on the last convenient day, was the number and percentage, respectively, of the unemployed in the quarrying industry in Aberdeenshire and Cornwall?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is in the form of a table, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Miss BONDFIELD: Proposals for a training scheme formulated by my Department are at present under consideration by the Granite and Roadstone Sectional Council of the Quarrying Joint Industrial Council.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there any unemployment in the kerb-dressing industry?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is a prospective shortage.

STATISTICS.

Viscountess ASTOR: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of male and female workers, respectively, registered as unemployed in each of the following categories: pottery trades, textile trades, clothing trades, food, drink, and tobacco trades?

PERCENTAGE rates of unemployment among insured persons classified as belonging to certain industries, in Great Britain at 22nd December, 1930.


Industry.
Percentage unemployed.


Males.
Females.
Total.


Pottery, Earthenware, etc.
…
…
…
35.5
47.2
41.9


Cotton
…
…
…
45.6
48.4
47.4


Woollen and Worsted
…
…
…
26.4
28.4
27.6


Silk manufacture and artificial silk weaving
…
…
…
27.3
36.4
33.2


Artificial silk yarn
…
…
…
47.6
48.9
48.2


Linen
…
…
…
28.3
35.5
33.5


Jute
…
…
…
35.8
35.4
35.6


Hemp, Rope, Cord, Twine, etc.
…
…
…
20.1
25.1
23.4


Hosiery
…
…
…
13.7
18.1
17.2


Lace
…
…
…
23.3
20.2
21.4


Carpets
…
…
…
18.8
20.7
20.0


Textile industries not separately specified
…
…
…
14.9
22.4
20.1


Textile Bleaching, Printing, Dyeing, etc.
…
…
…
32.9
31.6
32.5


Tailoring
…
…
…
16.8
16.2
16.4


Dress Making and Millinery
…
…
…
9.4
8.2
8.3


Hats and Caps (including Straw Plait)
…
…
…
19.9
22.1
21.2


Shirts, Collars, Underclothing, etc.
…
…
…
7.5
12.9
12.3


Dress industries not separately specified
…
…
…
17.2
9.4
11.9


Boots, Shoes, Slippers and Clogs
…
…
…
27.7
22.3
25.6


Bread, Biscuits, Cakes, etc.
…
…
…
11.8
11.1
11.5


Grain Milling
…
…
…
10.3
10.7
10.3


Cocoa, Chocolate and Sugar Confectionery
…
…
…
15.5
15.7
15.7


Food industries not separately specified
…
…
…
11.1
21.3
16.2


Drink
…
…
…
8.4
16.3
10.3


Tobacco, Cigars, Cigarettes and Snuff
…
…
…
5.2
9.3
7.9

Captain CROOKSHANK: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the cotton industry at the last available date in January, 1931; and how it compares with the numbers unemployed in the same industry in May, 1929?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the engineering trade on the last available date; and what was the comparable figure at the end of May, 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is in the form of a table, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Viscountess ASTOR: If more women, are unemployed in these trades than men, does not the right hon. Lady think that there ought to be some special schemes to deal with them?

Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the Noble. Lady will look at the table.

Following is the reply:

Commander SOUTHBY: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the shipbuilding trade at the last available date in January, 1931; and how it compares with the numbers unemployed in the same industry in May, 1929?

Captain A. HUDSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the woollen industry at the last available date in January, 1931; and how it compares with the number unemployed in the same industry in May, 1929?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in the iron and steel trades in Great Britain at the latest date available and in May, 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: The latest date for which information is available is 22nd December, 1930. The figures desired for that date and for 27th May, 1929, will be found in the issues of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for January, 1931, and June, 1929, copies of which I am sending to the hon. and right hon. Members.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say whether all these figures show an increase as compared with May, 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at, the table.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Surely the right hon. Lady can answer that question either in the affirmative or in the negative.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Has the promise been fulfilled to stimulate all these depressed trades, and are the figures to which the Minister alludes the result of the stimulus?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase in the number of unemployed on the live register at the present, time which is estimated to be due to changes introduced by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the information necessary for making such an estimate is not available.

TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT.

Sir A. POWNALL: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of persons on transitional benefit now and the percentage in May last year?

Miss BONDFIELD: Of the current claims for benefit in which the position under the first statutory condition had been determined, 16.3 per cent, were for transitional benefit at 29th December, 1930, the latest date for which figures are available, as compared with 20.6 per cent. at 26th May, 1930.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the number, and financial
extent, of schemes of work under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee submitted by the Pontefract Borough Council, and the position with regard to such schemes?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Unemployment Grants Committee have at present under consideration two schemes of work for the relief of unemployment submitted by Pontefract Borough Council, of an estimated total cost of £9,800. Both schemes are being examined by the appropriate Government Department on behalf of the Committee.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Lady say when this decision will be reached?

Miss BONDFIELD: The present position is that the Department are in consultation with the council.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour which areas are receiving a grant of 90 per cent. towards the wages of unemployed men employed on schemes of work; what is the total value of these schemes and the Exchequer liability; and how many men are thereby employed?

Miss BONDFIELD: Since the inception of this increased grant for schemes financed otherwise than by way of loan, 123 schemes have been approved for grant, of an estimated total cost of £298,000, and calculated to provide employment equivalent to 1,490 man-years. The estimated Exchequer liability on these schemes is £190,000. The areas eligible to receive these increased grants are those in which the average monthly rate of unemployment among adult males during the 12 months ended 16th June, 1930, exceeded 15 per cent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Do these schemes give any work for women?

Mr. MALONE: 70.
asked the Minister of Health which are the specially necessitous areas which have received 100 per cent. grant of the estimated cost of schemes of work put in hand this winter; what was the amount of the grant to each area; what numbers of men are employed thereby in each area; and how much of the £500,000 set aside for this purpose has been allocated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement giving the particulars for which my hon. Friend asks, so far as relates to the amount, namely, £440,000, of the Vote for these grants in England and Wales. Any question with regard to the Vote for Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.

Mr. THORNE: Will a definition of a necessitous area be published in that statement?

Viscountess ASTOR: Could the hon. Lady assure the House that the children in these necessitous areas are getting milk and boots, as she promised would be the case immediately after the Labour Government got into power?

Miss LAWRENCE: If the Noble Lady will put down a question, I will give her an answer, but her supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the question on the Paper.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am going to move the Adjournment of the House.

Following is the statement:


SPECIAL GRANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES IN NECESSITOUS AREAS.


England (excluding Monmouthshire).


Local Authority.
Amount of Grant. £
Number of men employed (approximate).


Annfield Plain U.D.C.
6,951
85


Auckland R.D.C.
12,383
158


Audley U.D.C.
6,900
100


Biddulph U.D.C.
4,012
26


Bishop Auckland U.D.C
7,464
65


Blaydon U.D.C.
15,373
146


Brandon and By-shottles U.D.C.
6,820
44


Chester - le - Street R.D.C
18,008
193


Cleator Moor U.D.C.
3,500
30


Crook U.D.C.
4,065
60


Hartlepool Boro'
9,985
173


Hetton U.D.C.
6,105
98


Shildon U.D.C.
4,389
25



105,955
1,203




Wales and Monmouth.


Local Authority.
Amount of Grant. £
Number of men employed (approximate).


Aberdare and Mountain U.D.C.'s (Joint Scheme)
46,000
232


Abertillery U.D.C.
19,998
67


Ammanford U.D.C.
3,500
24


Blaenavon U.D.C.
4,975
19


Brynmawr U.D.C.
7,000
39


Burry Port U.D.C.
2,053
18


Cwmamman U.D.C.
3,154
56


Ebbw Vale U.D.C.
15,161
98


Gellygaer U.D.C.
14,922
116


Glyncorrwg U.D.C.
5,200
42


Llandilofawr R.D.C.
10,000
170


Llanelly R.D.C.
16,970
320


Llantrisant R.D.C.
825
20


Merthyr Tydfil C.B.
39,697
393


Nantyglo and Blaina U.D.C
9,856
130


Neyland U.D.C.
1,080
22


Pembroke Boro.
6,275
51


Pontypridd U.D.C.
21,400
405


Rhymney U.D.C. 
5,500
29


Rhondda U.D.C.
83,857
1,159


Total
£317,423
3,410




SUMMARY.




£


Special Grant for England and Wales
440,000


Grants allocated:





£



England
105,955



Wales and Monmouth
317,423





423,378


Balance in hand to meet unforeseen engineering contingencies
16,622


Approximate number of men employed:



England

1,203


Wales and Monmouth

3,410


Total

4,613

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (INSURANCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is intended to introduce an Unemployment Insurance Bill for agricultural labourers?

Viscount ELMLEY: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she intends to bring forward a Measure to include agricultural workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act, in view of the increasing numbers of unemployed agricultural workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor) on 22nd January.

DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GUARANTEES.

Mr. MALONE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will call for and publish a return of the capital sums to be expended during the year ending 31st March, 1931, in respect of works put in hand by local authorities under Part II of the Development (Loans, Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, for which the Exchequer obligations have been officially stated to be £22,200,000?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that a return, which in any event would have to relate to a past period, might be misleading as an index of work actually performed during the year. Local authorities are already required to supply monthly returns showing the numbers directly employed on the site of works. These particulars provide a more accurate index of work performed than the return asked for by my hon. Friend, and I do not think I should be justified in putting local authorities to the trouble and expense of extracting the additional information.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. ALBERY: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the nature of any complaints she has received from trade unions concerning the Ministry's training centres, with special reference to any effect upon trade union conditions of employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: A few trade unions have represented that in the present state of trade the training of men in certain occupations is inimical to the interests of their members. I am watching the position closely, but am satisfied that there is no substantial ground for these apprehensions.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether, as a result, there is any change in the policy of the Government, and whether that accounts for the trivial increase in the number of persons receiving training?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid I did not hear the first part of the question.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Lady account for the trivial increase which has taken place in the number of persons
receiving training? Is it accounted for by the representations she has received from trade unions?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is not, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premises.

Mr. ALBERY: Does the right hon. Lady remember stating that there was an increase of only about 500 men and women?

Miss BONDFIELD: I said at the same time, or, at least, this is a very obvious explanation, that we are very carefully regulating the entries into the training centres by a consideration of the places we can get for the men after they have been placed; and quite obviously, from the figures of unemployment, it is becoming more and more difficult to find places.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Lady think it would be better to train them even if they did not get jobs?

DOCKYARD VACANCIES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the announced decision to give the Employment Exchanges the widest discretion possible in making a preliminary selection for vacancies that arise in His Majesty's dockyards, and to make a further review of the system of dealing with appointments in His Majesty's dockyards after a period of six months from February, 1930, she can now state what the present position is?

Miss BONDFIELD: The degree of cooperation between the Employment Exchanges and the dockyard authorities at Devonport has been under review, and I hope shortly to send the hon. and gallant Member a note of the result. In the meantime, he should not assume that any decision has been taken of the kind indicated in the first part of his question.

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Lady be good enough to communicate her reply to the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) also, seeing that his constituents are affected?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that the present system is quite unsatisfactory, and that people who wait outside the Employment Exchanges in the hope of getting work will never be successful
so long as the system of nomination prevails? Will she make it clear that it will be quite useless for men to apply to the Employment Exchanges for work if that is not the proper avenue for employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: If the hon. Member will look at the first part of the answer, he will see that this matter is under consideration.

CENSUS COMPILATION.

Mr. EGAN: 71.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the large number of unemployed clerks and professional men, he will issue recommendations to local authorities to employ as many as possible of such men for the compilation of the coming census?

Mr. ALPASS: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to ensure that as many of the unemployed as possible are engaged for the forthcoming census?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has, of course, given the most careful consideration to this matter, since all would agree that the unemployed should have the maximum opportunity of work consistent with success in carrying out the census work, which, I may observe, so far as it is enumeration, does not last very long. It is a condition of such success that persons recruited as enumerators must be fully qualified for the work, and must also be so situated that they can be relied on to be available for instruction during the necessary interval between their appointment and the census, and to do the work without fail when the day comes. Therefore, enumerators are required to bind themselves under penalty not to make default. Wholesale recourse to the unemployed in such conditions is not consistent either with their interests or with safety in the census arrangements, since, if offered regular work in the interval, they must refuse the offer or make default. My right hon. Friend has, however, taken all steps practicable to see that full consideration is given to unemployed persons, with the necessary qualifications, so situated that they can be relied on to do the work efficiently when the time comes. The success of the census enumeration has, however, to be the paramount factor in deciding what can and should be done.

Mr. ALPASS: Will my hon. Friend represent to the Minister the desirability of seeing whether it is not possible and practicable to reduce the period of recruitment for these people?

Miss LAWRENCE: I assure my hon. Friend that that matter has been under very careful consideration, and I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that it may be possible.

Captain A. HUDSON: Could the hon. Lady give the House any idea of what sort of number will be employed on this work?

Miss LAWRENCE: I should like notice of that question, but it will be a large number.

ROYAL COMMISSION (TREASURY MEMORANDUM).

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the memorandum presented by the Treasury to the chairman of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

Sir A. POWNALL: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make available for Members of Parliament the memorandum submitted by the Treasury to the Royal Commission on unemployment?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): This memorandum, along with other evidence taken by the Commission on the tenth day of its proceedings, will be published as a non-parliamentary publication towards the end of next week, and will be available to hon. Members on application in the usual manner.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman expedite publication, as, next Wednesday, there is a Motion for a Vote of Censure which will probably raise this question? If he does not publish the memorandum until after that, he will deprive the House of information except such as has been given in the "Times."

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will see if that can be done. If I remember rightly, the evidence of the Treasury expert and of
the Government Actuary was reported practically in full, but I will see if it can be expedited.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish the right hon. Gentleman could be more hopeful in the matter. It is only a question of printing. Surely he could promise it by the end of this week?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish all the evidence given in this memorandum?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, certainly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I mean from all sources and not only the Treasury memorandum.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Oh, no.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have it in due course?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any arrangements are being made for holding ballots with regard to political funds by the National Union of Textile Workers and the National Society of General and Municipal Workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Lady aware that under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Trade Unions Act, 1913, every trade unionist must be considered to be a member of an amalgamated trade union, and not of the original trade union if there has been an amalgamation, and that therefore a ballot is strictly necessary under the law?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken according to the information conveyed to me by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I refer the right hon. Lady to Sub-section (5) of Section 3, where she will see for herself?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have consulted the administrator of this Act, and he informs me to the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. MANDER: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour what countries have passed legislation making their application of the provisions of the Washington Eight Hours Convention contingent on ratification by this country?

Miss BONDFIELD: The following countries have ratified the Washington Hours Convention subject to its being ratified by Great Britain and one or more other named countries: Austria, France, Italy and Spain. The condition attached to the ratification of Latvia provides for ratification by three out of the eight States of chief industrial importance.

Mr. MANDER: Is that a very good reason for pressing on legislation at the earliest possible moment?

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member consider this point when later on he and his colleagues are pressing for Measures like the Electoral Reform Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES (ALIENS).

Major CARVER: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will inquire into the personnel of the beet-sugar factories' departmental staffs with a view, at an early date, to replacing those of other than British origin with our own engineers and mechanics who are to-day experiencing difficulty in finding posts of this character?

Miss BONDFIELD: The personnel of the beet-sugar factories is reviewed at regular intervals with a view to dispensing with the services of the alien members of the staff as fast as the interests of the industry will permit this to be done.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say how many aliens are employed?

Miss BONDFIELD: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXIMETER CABS (METER ILLUMINATION).

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware
that a considerable number of the meters used on London taximeter cabs are still very difficult to read and that many meters are insufficiently illuminated; and will he arrange that the police authorities shall refuse to licence taximeter cabs upon which the fare lettering on meters is not distinct or sufficiently lighted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): A similar question by the hon. Member was answered last Monday, and I would refer the hon. Member to that reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN AND CHILDREN (POLICE PROTECTION).

Viscountess ASTOR: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the appointment of women police for the greater protection of women and children on Blackheath?

Mr. CLYNES: Policewomen have already been posted to the Blackheath area as part of the measures recently taken to increase the number of police employed there.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has agreed to patrols for Clapham, Streatham and Tooting Bec Commons, and other places?

Mr. SPEAKER: That ought to be the subject of another question.

Mr. PALMER: 41.
asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to afford greater police protection in the Metropolitan Police area to women after dark on Blackheath and other lonely places and country roads; whether he will consider how far the present police patrol is insufficient; and whether he will consider mounted police on cars and cycles covering a wider area at more frequent intervals?

Mr. CLYNES: The force of police on duty on and around Blackheath has already been specially increased. As regards the police district generally, the question how the number of men available can be employed so as to give the greatest measure of protection is constantly under review, and the possibility of further developing the use of motor vehicles is not being overlooked. I may
add that although the recently instituted motor patrols are mainly concerned with traffic matters, their presence on the roads has undoubtedly afforded some additional measure of protection.

Mr. PALMER: Has the Home Secretary considered the possibility of danger from the mounted police being concentrated too much on traffic control to the prejudice of the proper control of these country areas?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a detail of which I should require notice.

Sir A. POWNALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted public authorities—for instance, the local borough councils—with regard to his suggestion?

Mr. CLYNES: I have drawn my information from the usual sources, but I will inquire into that point.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Home Secretary consider the appointment of a woman inspector of constabulary at the Home Office? If he did so, would not she have all authority to see that all these parks and places are properly protected by women police?

Mr. CLYNES: I know of no difficulty in the matter due to lack of effective inspectors.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we have been pressing for a woman inspector of constabulary at the Home Office? That would really make it much easier for women to go about the country.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the number of cases in which it has been impossible to trace those who have been responsible for murders, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of giving greater powers to the police, in order that they may have an opportunity of making all inquiries they think advisable?

Mr. CLYNES: I am advised that there is no ground of complaint in respect of their powers, or their lack of powers; and the cases have been very few indeed under the control of the Home Office.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that the police are very much handicapped by the new Regulations issued with regard to inquiries?

Mr. CLYNES: I have previously answered that question in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN ACT, 1908.

Viscountess ASTOR: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any indication as to when the Bill amending the Children Act, 1908, will be introduced?

Mr. CLYNES: I should be glad if I could find it possible later in the Session to introduce this Bill, but at present I am afraid I cannot make any more definite statement.

Viscountess ASTOR: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say in answer to a question that he was going to introduce it at an early date?

Mr. CLYNES: We are undertaking legislation as fast as we are permitted to do so.

Sir K. WOOD: Why does the right hon. Gentleman allow this important Bill to be elbowed out by legislation to give the alternative vote?

Mr. CLYNES: It is not being elbowed out.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the Home Secretary wishes to have expedition, cannot he take measures to expedite the passage of the Trade Disputes Bill in Committee upstairs?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSIC AND DRAMA (LICENCES).

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present state of the law with reference to stage plays and music and dancing licences, he will set up a committee to inquire into the matter for the purpose of introducing amending legislation to clarify the law?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I do not think that the time is opportune for an inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware than many of these theatres are liable to prosecution at the present time by a public informer for playing a harmless stage play when they only hold dancing and music licences?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no information on that point, and I should be glad to receive it.

Mr. DAY: Will my right hon. Friend look at the correspondence which has passed between his office and myself?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to prevent this loathsome procedure?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Home Secretary the number of individual cases from Lancashire where workmen have not received their compensation in full owing to the colliery company not being insured to meet their liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of any cases of this kind having occurred recently in Lancashire, but I am making further inquiries. If any such cases have come to the notice of my hon. Friend, I should be very glad if he would furnish me with particulars.

Mr. TINKER: 40.
asked the Home Secretary the total amount of compensation paid to workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the years 1928 and 1929?

Mr. CLYNES: Returns under the Workmen's Compensation Act are called for only from employers in seven great groups of industries, namely, mines, quarries, railways, factories, docks, constructional work, and shipping. The returns show that the total amount of compensation paid to workmen or their dependants in these industries was in 1928, £6,457,273, and in 1929, £6,569,918. I regret that figures for the other industries and employments under the Act are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING ACT.

Sir BASIL PETO: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in spite of the provisions of Section 1 (2) (b) of the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928, which limit the use of the totalisator to betting transactions on horse races only, totalisator betting is advertised in connection with greyhound races on greyhound racing tracks; and what steps he intends to take to enforce the observance of the law?

Mr. CLYNES: The questions of law involved are for the courts. One such question is, I understand, likely to be
considered by the High Court. If the decision be that the use of totalisators at greyhound racing tracks is illegal, I have no doubt that steps will be taken to see that the law is enforced.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

MINISTERS SALARIES AND MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the national need for rigid economy, he will recommend that all ministerial and parliamentary salaries be reduced by 10 per cent.?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I do not propose to comment on particular proposals relating to economy in advance of the discussion next week on the Vote of Censure put down by the hon. and gallant Member's leaders.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this economy has been effected in Italy, and does he not think it is time that the Government should give a lead to the country in this much-needed direction?

Mr. LEES: Is the Prime Minister aware that for the last five years £20,750,000 has been paid in pensions to ex-Army officers and Navy officers, and is he prepared to reduce that sum?

INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.

Sir K. WOOD: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider the advisability of appointing a committee to consider how far the present incidence of taxation can be altered so as to remove, as far as possible, the burden at present placed on enterprise, re-equipment, and development?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 25th November last in reply to a similar question.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? Has he contemplated the seriousness of the position?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not so well acquainted with the proposals of the right
hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs as the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he ought to make himself acquainted with them?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will do so when the necessity arises.

EXCHANGE ACCOUNT.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: 83.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of £1,110,000 transferred from the Exchange account to the Exchequer, or any part of it, was included in the receipts estimated in his Budget; and whether it is intended to make any further transfers in this financial year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the Exchange account has surplus assets amounting to about £3,000,000 which are available as miscellaneous revenue this year.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to use it as miscellaneous revenue?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: There is a large capital sum of £33,000,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is quite evident that the hon. Gentleman does not understand it. There is a capital sum and interest on the capital.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will find the £33,000,000 Exchange capital sum in the Appropriation Account just published?

GOLD STOCKS.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information showing the total amount of gold added to or withdrawn from the stocks available for monetary purposes in the United States, France, and Argentine, respectively, in 1930?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The gold added to stocks available for monetary purposes in the United States in 1930 was $309,000,000 (£63,500,000) and in France from 3rd January, 1930, to 2nd January, 1931, was Frs. 11,303,000,000 (£91,000,000). The figure for Argentina is not available.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much gold was withdrawn from England during last year on balance

Mr. SNOWDEN: Not without notice.

INCOME TAX (COST OF COLLECTION).

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: 87.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what percentage of the total amount of Income Tax collected and the cost of collection was in the years 1913–14, 1923–26, and 1929–30, respectively?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I regret that it is not possible to isolate the cost of the collection of Income Tax from that of the other duties collected by the Inland Revenue Department. The hon. Member will find in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue estimates of the total cost of collecting all Inland Revenue duties showing the percentage of cost to the gross amount collected.

CUSTOMS DUTIES (COLLECTION).

Mr. WHITE: 89.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present strength of the personnel employed in the collection of Customs duties and the total annual cost to the Exchequer of the salaries and wages paid; and what were the corresponding figures for the financial year 1913–14?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The total staff employed in the Customs and Excise Department on 1st January last was 11,902, and the total cost of salaries and wages in the Department for the current financial year is estimated at approximately millions. The number of staff employed in the Department on 1st August, 1914, was 10,802, and the total cost of salaries and wages for the financial year 1914–15 was £1,843,000.

WALES (ADMINISTRATION).

Major OWEN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce, during the present Session, a Measure of Devolution for Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 29th
July last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Lloyd).

Major OWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider his decision, in view of the congestion of business in this Chamber?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am always considering the matter.

Sir K. WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider further this request from the Liberal party, inasmuch as I understand he is giving them everything they want?

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS.

Mr. DAY: 47.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the nature of any replies he has given to deputations from the London Cinematograph Exhibitors with reference to the present position of the opening of cinemas on Sunday evenings; and can he give the House any further information on this matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I propose to receive a deputation at an early date from the Cinematograph Exhibitors on this subject, and I am to-day receiving a deputation from the London County Council. My hon. Friend may rest assured that a soon as I am in a position to make any statement to this House I shall do so without delay, but he will recognise that the matter is one which requires careful consideration.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the result of these deliberations and conversations with the London County Council will be made public?

Mr. CLYNES: I think that is implied in the terms of my answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are not these cinematograph shows open as it is on Sunday nights, in spite of all that has happened?

ALIENS (MR. SABOTTKA).

Sir F. HALL: 48.
asked the Home Secretary what were the conditions attached to the permit issued recently to Mr. Gustav Sabottka, a German, to enter this country; what were the reasons ad-
vanced by Mr. Sabottka for wishing to visit Great Britain; and what were the grounds on which Mr. Sabottka has since been deported?

Mr. CLYNES: Gustav Sabottka was given leave to land at Harwich on the 7th January, on his statement to the Immigration Officer that he was coming on a visit of four or five days to friends in London. He was found shortly afterwards in South Wales and in view of information which I received regarding his activities there I caused him to be warned on the 10th January to leave the country at once. I am informed that in accordance with this warning he left this country on the 11th January.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Were his tickets in order?

EDUCATION.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether further negotiations have taken place with a view to an agreed plan for assisting the voluntary schools in reorganisation and for the raising of the school-leaving age; and, if so, with what result?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): Conversations are proceeding, but there is, as yet, nothing further to report to the House.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of pupils attending the rate-aided secondary schools in Lancashire; and the number of free places granted in such schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: On the 1st October, 1930, there were 47,078 full-time pupils in rate-aided secondary schools in Lancashire, of whom 21,218 were free place pupils. These figures related to the geographical county, including the county boroughs as well as the administrative county.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL (NEGOTIATIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he intends to grant the return, of which notice has been given by the hon. and
gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) regarding the Education (School Attendance) Bill negotiations?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The proposals in question have already been given a wide publicity in the Press; but, in response to what I understand to be the wish of many Members of the House, I will issue them immediately in the form of a White Paper. This appears to be a more convenient course than granting the return asked for by the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. TINKER: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can give the average number of children getting meals under the provisions of the Feeding of School Children Act; and will he state the percentage of local authorities which have put the Act into operation?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Excluding holiday periods, the average number of children who received meals each week during 1930 was 146,100, and 152 out of 317 local authorities, or 48 per cent., exercised their powers for the provision of meals during that year.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. MANDER: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will call for reports as to the relative value for physical development of military training given in the officers' training corps in schools as compared with Swedish and other drill?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Board's inspectors do not inspect the military training given in the officers' training corps. But for many years the methods of physical training advocated by the Board in their model syllabuses have been based on the Swedish system, which was deliberately adopted after full consideration of various alternatives. I understand that in many schools which have officers' training corps physical training by the Swedish method is also given, and that military training is not considered to be a substitute for it.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the desire of the Board of Education to main military training from an educational point of view?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not think that it has much to do with education.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 54.
asked the Minister of Health if the consideration of the whole question of ophthalmic benefit, under the National Health Insurance Acts, has now been completed by the sub-committee of the Approved Societies Consultative Council; and, if so, will he indicate the nature of the report thereon?

Miss LAWRENCE: The sub-committee of the Approved Societies Consultative Council have not yet completed their consideration of the question of ophthalmic benefit. My right hon. Friend would point out that the deliberations of the Consultative Council are confidential.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will the hon. Lady tell me if the issuing of these statutory regulations respecting this particular benefit has been done without consultation with the sub-committee?

Miss LAWRENCE: I think I must have notice of that question.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, as a result of the operation of Section 25, paragraph (5) (b), of the National Health Insurance (Additional Benefits) Regulations, 1930 (Provisional Regulations, dated 18th June, 1930), a large number of unqualified suppliers of optical glasses are now giving ophthalmic treatment and supplying glasses; and what action he proposes to take?

Miss LAWRENCE: The provision of the regulations to which the hon. Member refers is designed to conform to the principle of free choice of practitioner which was laid down by the National Health Insurance Act, 1928. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that it has resulted in unsuitable treatment or appliances being provided to inured persons; and in his view a sufficient safeguard is furnished by the authority given to a Society, if it has good reason
for doing so in a particular case, to withhold consent to a member obtaining glasses from an optician who is not a member of an organisation recognised by the society.

Mr. FREEMAN: 62.
asked the Minister of Health how many, if any, hospitals have been registered under the National Health Insurance Act for the supply of medicines, drugs, and appliances to panel patients; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Miss LAWRENCE: So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, no hospital is included in any list of persons supplying drugs, medicines, and appliances under the National Health Insurance Acts. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it permissible for a hospital to be so registered?

Miss LAWRENCE: I think I must have notice of that question.

Mr. FREEMAN: That is the question which I asked.

Sir K. WOOD: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has taken any action with reference to the representations of the Co-operative Congress and other co-operative societies and bodies against the Regulations which prohibit the payment of co-operative dividends on National Health Insurance prescriptions?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has decided to revoke Clause 4 (4) of the terms of service of insurance chemists, which covers this matter, and has informed the representative bodies concerned accordingly.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Lady say when that will be done?

Miss LAWRENCE: Very shortly.

PUBLIC HEALTH.

WELLS MENTAL HOSPITAL, SOMERSET.

Mr. GOULD: 56.
asked the Minister of Health the number of beds and the number of patients in the Wells Mental Hospital, Somerset?

Miss LAWRENCE: There are 840 beds and 806 patients in the Wells Mental Hospital.

Mr. GOULD: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the number of patients discharged from the Wells Mental Hospital; and the number of such patients who returned to the hospital during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929?

Miss LAWRENCE: During 1927 67 patients were discharged, of whom 17 returned to the mental hospital. During 1928 101 patients were discharged, of whom 17 returned; and during 1929 61 were discharged, of whom 11 returned.

SEWAGE FLOODING, KENSINGTON.

Mr. WEST: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether steps are being taken to prevent the flooding of houses with sewage water in the Borough of Kensington?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend understands that the London County Council have taken and are taking extensive measures to improve their storm relief sewerage system so as to prevent as far as practicable the flooding of premises in Kensington.

RHEUMATIC DISEASES (PETO PLACE CLINIC).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 74.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now give an account of the results obtained at the British Red Cross clinic for rheumatic diseases at Peto Place; and if proposals to extend this work are under consideration?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend understands that there has been a steady and gratifying increase in the work of this Clinic. It would, however, be premature to attempt to assess the results obtained. Proposals made to my right hon. Friend for the extension of treatment of rheumatism will, of course, receive his careful consideration.

Mr. WHITE: Would the hon. Lady take such steps as may be open to her to acquaint local authorities with the results of this important and beneficent experiment, so that they may be encouraged to take similar steps?

Miss LAWRENCE: I have indicated that we should like to have a little more time to watch it.

GERMAN SALT.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether
his attention has been drawn to the importation of German salt containing particles of rock and insoluble calcium; and wheher, to avoid injury to health, he will say what steps he proposes to take to prevent its sale for human consumption?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been drawn to this matter, but he would be glad to receive any information which the hon. and gallant Member may have in his possession.

VENEREAL DISEASES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 78.
asked the Minister of Health when the surveys of the health services of local authorities by the officers of his Department will be sufficiently advanced for him to say in how many areas no propaganda on venereal disease is being undertaken?

Miss LAWRENCE: It is anticipated that the initial surveys of the health services of the county and county borough councils will be completed in about two years' time.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does that mean that no action can possibly be taken until two years' time?

Miss LAWRENCE: I would not go so far as that.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: When will the hon. Lady be able to give us any information?

TUBERCULOSIS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 79.
asked the Minister of Health how soon he will be able to publish the memorandum on human and bovine tuberculosis promised on 6th February, 1930?

Miss LAWRENCE: This memorandum is now being printed, and it is hoped to publish it at an early date.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: Is there any report ready about the experiment on Mr. Buxton's estate in Suffolk?

Miss LAWRENCE: Not yet.

LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 80.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received the report of the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee on the recom-
mendations of the Departmental Committee on London cleansing; and what action he proposes to take with a view to centralisation of the disposal of house, trade and street refuse in London?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has now received a report from the Standing Joint Committee which indicates that 11 Metropolitan sanitary authorities were in favour of centralisation and 18 against it. The question is receiving my right hon. Friend's further consideration, but it is not practicable to contemplate introducing legislation this Session.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In what manner will it be possible for the House to assist in devising legislation for the purpose of discussing the problem?

Miss LAWRENCE: I do not see any prospect of the Government introducing legislation this Session.

HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the population to be rehoused and the number of new houses to be built under new five-year schemes in England and Wales, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

Miss LAWRENCE: Only urban authorities representing populations of not less than 20,000 are required to submit statements of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind. Statements have so far been received from 236 out of the 290 authorities concerned, providing for the rehousing of 427,066 persons and, apart from this rehousing, the erection of 209,860 new houses. These figures include 71,511 persons and, apart from rehousing, 31,734 houses, in the programmes submitted by 36 local authorities in the geographical county of Lancaster.

Major HARVEY: Is this scheme modelled on the five-year plan of another country?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 64.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses built by private enterprise and State-aided schemes during the past year and the increase or decrease from the previous year?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member a copy of a reply given on the 27th ultimo to a question by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne East, which contains the information he desires.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Parliamentary Secretary content with the progress the Labour party is making with regard to housing?

Miss LAWRENCE: Yes, I think we have reason to be content.

SOMERS TOWN.

Mr. WEST: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory condition of much property in Somers Town, in the neighbourhood of St. Mary's Parish Church; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Miss LAWRENCE: Substantial works of slum clearance and re-housing have been carried out in this neighbourhood by the London County Council, the Saint Pancras Borough Council, and the Saint Pancras House Improvement Society. No specific complaints are at present before my right hon. Friend, but he will be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may wish to submit to him.

RURAL WORKER'S ACT.

Major HARVEY: 72.
asked the Minister of Health how many grants have been made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, for the re-conditioning of agricultural houses in the counties of Devon and Cornwall, respectively?

Miss LAWRENCE: Up to the 31st December last, grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, had been promised in respect of 523 dwellings in the county of Devon and 205 dwellings in the county of Cornwall.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the hon. Lady say why such small advantage has been taken of this Act in Cornwall?

Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid I could not go into the comparative methods in different counties across the Floor of the House.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the House statistics of the number of condemned houses in the borough of Southwark?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend is informed that the number of condemned houses in the borough of Southwark is now 695.

Mr. DAY: Has my hon. Friend's Department any power to see that the local council insist upon the owners who receive rents for these condemned houses making them fit for human habitation?

Miss LAWRENCE: I think that perhaps it may be as well if I state that a great number of these houses come under clearance schemes.

Mr. DAY: Has the Department power to see that, in the case of these hundreds of houses which are more than overcrowded at the present time, the local council make them fit for human habitation?

Miss LAWRENCE: I would refer my hon. Friend and the House to the Act, which, it will be found, gives the Minister very considerable powers.

Mr. DAY: Will the Department insist upon exercising those powers?

Miss LAWRENCE: I have pointed out that many of these houses come under clearance schemes already.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. JAMES HALL: 66.
asked the Minister of Health what number of men and what number of women, respectively, are in receipt of pensions under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and how many of the said men and women are at present in employment?

Miss LAWRENCE: On 31st December last, 713,434 men and 978,680 women were in receipt of pensions under or by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Acts. Of the pensioners over the age of 65, 298,000 men and 48,500 women were employed at some time during the first half of last year, but I regret that no information is available as to the number of widow pensioners under the age of 65 who are in employment.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. J. HALL: 67.
asked the Minister of Health the number of men and women in receipt of old age pensions who find it necessary to have such pensions supplemented by assistance from the public assistance committees?

Miss LAWRENCE: The number of persons over 65 years of age who were in receipt of poor relief on the 31st March, 1930 (the latest date for which the information is available), and also in receipt of old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, or pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 and 1929, was 109,462.

INSURANCE AND PENSIONS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. ALBERY: 73.
asked the Minister of Health on what date the report from the committee surveying national insurance and pensions schemes was submitted to the Government?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to add anything to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member on 29th January with regard to the work of this Cabinet Committee.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. Lady aware that I did not ask the Minister that question? It is quite a different question. Is there any reason why the hon. Lady should not give the reply for which I asked?

Miss LAWRENCE: The previous answer gave certain information with regard to the pension and insurance work of the committee, and my right hon. Friend has nothing to add to that statement.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Lady say whether the committee has reported, and whether the House is going to know what the report is?

Miss LAWRENCE: The previous answer, given by my right hon. Friend on the 29th January, informed the House that the report was under consideration.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, which I regard as being discourteous to the
whole of the House, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

SAFEGUARDING (WRAPPING PAPER).

Mr. WHITE: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to renew the customs duties on packing or wrapping paper which are shortly due to expire?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Why is the right hon. Gentleman determined to force more men out of employment?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The policy of the Government has been repeatedly expressed in the matter. We are not like some parties who change their views once a week in response to Lord Beaverbrook.

DOMINION AND COLONIAL LOANS.

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 88.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will in future make it a condition that every Dominion or Colonial loan seeking admission to the Treasury list of trustee securities under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, shall discharge interest, capital repayments, and sinking fund in English pounds sterling, as defined by the Gold Standard Act, 1925, and the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member's proposal is, I think, unnecessary. Admission of Dominion or Colonial loans to the list of Trustee Stocks depends in the first place on the stock being registered in this country under the Colonial Stock Acts, and I am not aware of any stock having been registered under that Act which was not a sterling loan.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the decision of several of the Australian banks to pay dividends at the Australian rate of exchange to holders registered in London?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the hon. Gentleman is under an entire misapprehension. The question refers to trustee securities under the Colonial
Stock Act. He is now speaking about entirely different types of securities, and I think the confusion is, therefore, in his own mind.

MURDER TRIALS (COSTS OF PROSECUTION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of a murder trial in which the Public Prosecutor takes up the case, he can say whether the costs incurred by the prosecution, which sometimes run into thousands of pounds, are paid by the county rates in which the case occurs or are paid by the Treasury?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The costs of the Director of Public Prosecutions in a murder trial are payable from voted moneys, but under the provisions of the Prosecution of Offences and Costs in Criminal Cases Acts, 1908, the Court is empowered to direct the payment of certain allowances towards the costs of the prosecution out of the funds of the county borough or county in which the offence was committed.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does that mean that in future the county has always to pay these costs and is it not fair, where there are two or three murder trials considered important enough to have the Public Prosecutor prosecuting, that these costs should be taken over by the Treasury and not fall upon the county?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard my answer. It is all contained in the Act of 1908 and, as far as I am concerned, that Act stands and controls the situation.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Could we not have cheaper counsel to conduct the prosecution?

AGRICULTURE.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. LEES: 91.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the setting up of catchment area boards under the Land Drainage Act?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Catchment boards have now been fully constituted for 20 of the
47 catchment areas scheduled under the Land Drainage Act; eight of these boards have already held their first meeting; and in the other 12 cases, the first meeting will be held during this month or early in March.
As regards the other 27 catchment areas:

(a) Three further Orders and maps are being sealed this week, and the membership of the boards is being completed;
(b) Nine Orders and maps have been on deposit for the requisite period, and the objections received are now under examination;
(c) In two further cases the period of deposit has not yet expired; and
(d) In the remaining 13 cases, the survey of the area is not yet complete.

Mr. LEES: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to issue a White Paper in order to give full information to Members of this House?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I shall be glad to give fuller details than are contained in the answer to this question.

Mr. LEES: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give the name of every individual appointed on those boards in the White Paper?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to consider that matter.

WHEAT PRICES.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 92.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the average price per quarter of wheat at the present time; and what steps he is taking to ensure a remunerative price to British agricultural producers?

Dr. ADDISON: According to the returns received under the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921, the average price of British wheat in England and Wales during the week ended 31st January, 1931, was 5s. 5d. per cwt., equivalent to 23s. 3d. per quarter of 480 lbs. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to recent answers to questions on the cereal situation.

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what it costs to grow?

Dr. ADDISON: It depends upon the farmer and the yields.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Major CARVER: 93.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the effect upon agriculture in the urban district of Selby by the failure of the sugar-beet factories and the beet-sugar growers to reach a settlement; and whether he can now make any statement as to the assistance which the Government feels able to give to the industry?

Mr. GRANVILLE: 94.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to get into touch with the representatives of the sugar-beet industry with a view to discussing the question of the continuation of the industry?

Dr. ADDISON: I shall be glad if the hon. Members will be good enough to postpone their questions for a few days, as I hope to be in a position to make a statement early next week.

Sir F. HALL: 95.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what were the numbers of persons employed in the beet-sugar manufacturing industry on 31st December, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?

Dr. ADDISON: The average number of persons employed in the beet-sugar factories in the past three manufacturing seasons has been: 1928–29, 8,172; 1929–30, 8,854; 1930–31, 9,900. My Department has not the figures for 31st December in each of the three years mentioned.

SCOTLAND (TEACHERS' SALARIES).

Mr. STEPHEN: 96.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Glasgow Corporation education committee are asking for a reduction of teachers' salaries at the present time; if he will see when such proposals come before him that non-graduate teachers are not penalised as compared with graduate teachers; and whether he will consider deferring ratification of any such reduction till the general position in the country with regard to teachers' salaries has been settled?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I am aware that proposals for the reduction of teachers' salaries are engaging
the attention of a committee of the Glasgow Corporation. In considering any amended scheme of salaries submitted by the education authority, my power is limited to seeing that the statutory requirements are observed.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion when a reduction took place non-graduate women teachers, especially, were penalised, and will he see that the statutory conditions in respect of them will be fully observed?

Mr. ADAMSON: It is my duty to see that the statutory conditions are observed.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statutory conditions in connection with this matter were not observed in the spirit with regard to the non-graduate teachers on the previous occasion?

Mr. ADAMSON: I will do my best to see that they are observed.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take very great care to inform himself exactly as to what are the statutory conditions?

Mr. ADAMSON: I always do.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the business will be next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Agricultural Marketing Bill, Second Reading.
Tuesday: Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, completion of further stages.
We should also like, on Tuesday, to complete the further stages of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill, which has passed Standing Committee without amendment. That will be the subject of negotiations through the usual channels.
Wednesday: Motion—[National Economy]—in the name of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin).
Thursday: Motion—[Unemployment]—in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider giving a second day for the Agricultural Marketing Bill. It is rather a complicated Bill, and, if it is treated as the Bill now under discussion and is sent upstairs with special powers to the Chairman, there will be very little opportunity of discussing the general principles of the Bill and getting information on the details of Clauses, and that is of very great importance in Bills of this kind. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the request which I have made and perhaps allow us to consult him through the usual channels.

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very glad to have consultation through the usual channels, but I studied this Bill, and I thought that it would be far better to let it have a Second Reading on one day and then give it examination upstairs. I will gladly consult them about the upstairs procedure. I do not like—honestly and sincerely—to move these Resolutions, and I will only do so if I find that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of time.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister, if his attention has been called to a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with the present disastrous dispute in the cotton and textile industry and if it would be possible to provide time for a discussion of it, as it seems of more immediate and urgent importance as compared with the somewhat academic Motions in the names of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) and the right hon. Member the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, my attention has been drawn to that Motion upon the Order Paper. The time of the House is very short, but Plaything that this House can do to advance the interests of peace in the cotton industry I should only be too glad to provide time for. I am bound to say, however, that I am not going to provide time for a Motion which, instead of helping the situation, will infinitely worsen it.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister, since he holds that view so strongly, if he will provide an opportunity for discussing that point?

Mr. BECKETT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the past industrial disputes have not always been discussed in this House on the Motion of the Labour Opposition, and whether they are not now to be discussed when Labour is in office?

The PRIME MINISTER: That may be so. I am not prepared to say "yes" or "no" absolutely to that question, but, when Labour was on the other side of the House and asked for opportunities for discussion, it did it in a responsible way, after consultation with the responsible representatives of the party.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, if he is prepared in the meantime to put into operation the Emergency Powers Act and open the mills in Lancashire and, secondly, does he not consider that the approach to this question has behind it

the great majority ballot vote in Lancashire?

The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to both parts of that question, I say "no."
The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the PRIME MINISTER:
That the Proceedings on the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

The PRIME MINISTER: This Motion is usually put in two parts. I suggest that the first part should be put and, as I understand an arrangement has been made, I do not propose to move the second part of the Motion.

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 148.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Dukes, C.
Isaacs, George


Ammon, Charles George
Ede, James Chuter
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Arnott, John
Edmunds, J. E.
Johnston, Thomas


Aske, Sir Robert
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, F. L[...]eweliyn- (Flint)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Ayles, Walter
Foot, Isaac
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Freeman, Peter
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gardner, B. W. {West Ham, Upton)
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, James
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gill, T. H.
Kinley, J.


Bellamy, Albert
Glassey, A. E.
Kirkwood, D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gossling, A. G.
Knight, Holford


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gould, F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Blindell, James
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lang, Gordon


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Graham, Rt. Hon.Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gray, Milner
Lathan, G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bromley, J.
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brooke, W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawson, John James


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Buchanan, G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Leach, W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Cameron, A. G.
Harbord, A.
Less, J.


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Percy A.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Logan, David Gilbert


Chater, Daniel
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Longbottom, A. W.


Clarke, J. S.
Haycock, A. W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, Arthur
Lunn, William


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Compton, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
McElwee, A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
McEntee, V. L.


Daggar, George
Hoffman, P. C.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Dallas, George
Hopkin, Daniel
McKinlay, A.


Dalton, Hugh
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Horrabin, J. F.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Day, Harry
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


McShane, John James
Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Potts, John S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Price, M. P.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Mansfield, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Marcus, M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stephen, Campbell


Marley, J.
Raynes, W. R.
Strauss, G. R.


Marshall, Fred
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sutton, J. E.


Mathers, George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Matters, L. W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Maxton, James
Romeril, H. G.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Melville, Sir James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Messer, Fred
Rothschild, J. de
Tout, W. J.


Milner, Major J.
Rowson, Guy
Townend, A. E.


Morley, Ralph
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Vaughan, David


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sanders, W. S.
Walkden, A. G.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandham, E.
Walker, J.


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Scott, James
Watkins, F. C.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Muff, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Murnin, Hugh
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wellock, Wilfred


Naylor, T. E.
Sherwood, G. H.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Noel-Buxton, Baronets (Norfolk, N.)
Shield, George William
West, F. R.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Westwood, Joseph


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shillaker, J. f.
White, H. G.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shinwell, E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Palin, John Henry.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wise, E. F.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)



Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Baillie-Hamliton, Hon. Charles W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fermoy, Lord
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Beaumont, M. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Connor, T. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsbotham, H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Salmon, Major I.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lockwood, Captain J, H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Marjoribanks, Edward
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Meller, R. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tinne, J. A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of




Todd, Capt. A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Train, J.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
Wells, Sydney R.



Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Womersley, W. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL,

"to extend the period during which payments are to be made to the fund constituted under section twenty of the Mining Industry Act, 1920," presented by Mr. Shinwell; supported by Mr. William Graham; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Colfox; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Stewart.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A. (added in respect of the Workmen's Compensation Bill): Mr. Charles Gibson; and had appointed in substitution: Major Braithwaite.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Major Colville and Major George Davies; and had appointed in substitution: Major Sir Herbert Cayzer and Viscount Lymington.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Minister to acquire land for purposes of reconditioning.)

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, to leave out from the word "take," to the first "the," in line 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment that I moved at an earlier stage, and is to bring the Clause into accord with the discussion that took place at that time.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the word "reserve" that he proposes to insert here means that a very large number of existing leases between landlords and tenants will have to be redrawn? It occurs to me that that is so. We ought to be perfectly clear about that before the House accepts the new word in this context. Where a landlord has a right under the existing lease of enforcing the tenant to take action if the land gets into a neglected state, we ought to know whether the word "reserve" means that that will be so for the future, and whether the inclusion of the word might constitute a hardship?

Dr. ADDISON: I will certainly consider the point. If the right hon. Member will refer back to page 5, line 1, he will remember that we there inserted these words, and this Amendment is purely consequential upon that alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) the total expenditure involved would be justified having regard to any additional return which might reasonably be expected to be obtainable from the land after the execution of the works specified in the notice.
The House will remember that the Clause we are now discussing is one which gives power to the Minister to purchase land, and yesterday we got as far as the middle of page 6 of the Bill. Sub-section (5) says:
In the event of any dispute between the Minister and any person upon whom a notice or a copy of a notice has been served in accordance with the provisions of the two last foregoing sub-sections as to whether:
(a) the piece of land to which the notice relates is in a seriously neglected condition; or
(c) any requirements of the notice ere unreasonable;
then the person who objects may refer the dispute to a single arbitrator appointed by the Department. That is to say, if certain things are in dispute between the Minister who wants to get a piece of land, and the owner or occupier of that land, then that matter in dispute may be referred to a single arbitrator, and, consequently, if the arbitrator gives a decision against the Minister, nothing further is done in the matter.
I am moving another proviso which will enable the objector to have arbitration when he considers that the Minister is doing, not so much an unfair thing to him, but a stupid thing from the national point of view. If the owner of the land which the Minister has purchased under compulsion with public money, is convinced that the return, after the reconditioning of the land, would be so small as to make the reconditioning not worth while, he may say, "Let us have arbitration upon it." I cannot conceive that the House will object to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) shakes his head. The right hon. Gentleman, after his long Parliamentary and public experience, will not suggest that public money ought to be spent on an article which, when put into condition, would not bring in more than the money it has cost. No person is going to spend £20 on a piece of land, when the return which he would get from reconditioning is only 20s. I am not objecting to reconditioning, but I am afraid that the discretion and the business acumen of the Minister will be superseded by his enthusiasm for the Bill, and may even allow his heart to get the better of his head, so that he
will say, "Here's a wonderful thing! Let us recondition all the Welsh hills. Let us make them fit for heroes to get a living on." [An HON. MEMBER:" And the New Forest!"] That is an open space on which it might not be worth while to spend anything for reconditioning. It is a very remarkable thing that the right hon. Gentleman in his enthusiasm for public expenditure is apparently willing to spend public money on reconditioning land, in cases where, after it has been reconditioned, it will be found to be land on which it was not worth spending any money. He says, "Where the Socialist spends £1, I spend £2."
It cannot be suggested that this is an obstructive or unreasonable Motion. It is not. I am not saying that the owner of land should be able to stop this public money being spent. All I say is that the arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties should be able to say whether public money should be spent. It seems to me such an obviously reasonable and businesslike arrangement, that I feel confident it will appeal to the Minister of Agriculture. Nothing we put forward is accepted, except after a lot of discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept suitable Amendments at once, it would save a good deal of Parliamentary time. In the present case I rely upon the common sense of the Amendment to get the agreement of the House.

Dr. ADDISON: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. A good many landowners for a long time have not received a very good return on the expenditure on buildings and houses; we all recognise that. But suppose we had a case of neglected land, such as the one we have heard so much about, where all the buildings were much dilapidated, we should have to pay for all the reconditioning, and then might be stopped from proceeding further unless we could prove that we were going to get a, proper return on the expenditure. In the case of land which has got into this state the Amendment will increase our difficulty in putting this Clause into operation, and I cannot think that that result was present in the mind of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he put his Amendment on the Paper. That, how-
ever, is the effect of it. It would be almost impossible in every case to show that the money that is to be spent on reconditioning is going to give a proper return, at all events a return in the immediate future. We must take a much longer vision than that of an immediate return in the way of dividends on the money spent. I cannot accept the Amendment.

Captain BOURNE: I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture has quite put the Amendment to the House. It provides that it shall be open to a landlord on whom a notice is served to execute certain works to put up as a ground of objection to the arbitrator that to force him to do this work is to entail upon him an expenditure out of all proportion to the probable return. From the point of view of the private landowner, and the State, it is impossible to maintain the argument that money should be spent on reconditioning land which will give you no return; it is not a contestable proposition. It is not as though the country had plenty of money to spend or that private individuals had plenty of money to spend, and to expect this House, or anybody else, to spend vast sums of money on reclaiming land when the market value of ordinary land is a great deal below the cost of reclamation seems to me to be a perfectly indefensible proposition. If this Amendment is not inserted the Minister of Agriculture can spend money on the reclamation of land and may incur a loss, and he will then be obliged to sell that land to someone else who will scoop the benefit of the Minister's loss at the expense of the taxpayer. This is a Clause to subsidise landlords.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not understand on what logical basis the right hon. Gentleman resists the Amendment. He is being asked to incorporate in the Bill a provision that there should be some obligation on him to show that the expenditure of public money he proposes will be justified. Is the Minister of Agriculture afraid that if he is called upon to show that this expenditure is justified, he will be unable to do so? The justification is that the Minister shall show that the expenditure will give an additional return, but quite apart from that it seems to me that no landlord, no private individual, would lay out money
on land reclamation which would not be justified, and we in this House should at least be as careful of the public money we are spending on the reclamation of land as a private individual. From the beginning to the end of this Clause I can find no economic restrictions at all, no tests as to what is going to be the return to the taxpayer for the money expended, and the cynical attitude of the Minister in the way he has brushed this Amendment aside shows that it is the intention of the Government, with the support of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to pour out public money irrespective of whether it is going to be justified or not, and irrespective of whether there is going to be any return for the expenditure. The Minister of Agriculture resists every conceivable test that can be applied to see whether the expenditure is justified. I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division in order that the country may realise the test which the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to allow to himself in the control of public expenditure.

Viscount WOLMER: I am glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend has moved this Amendment if only because of the reply it has elicited from the Minister of Agriculture. We are now discussing this Bill at the time when the country will be able to learn something of our proceedings, and I hope that this fact will be given proper publicity by the gentlemen of the Press and that the public outside will take note of the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture and the support he is receiving from the Leader of the Liberal party, who has put economy in the forefront of his programme. All we are asking for in this Amendment is that an owner, who knows the land, who has lived on the land, and who knows its capabilities, who has reason to doubt the expediency, from a financial point of view, of the State spending a large sum of money on its reclamation or improvement should be allowed to refer that point to the arbitrator, who is to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. The Minister of Agriculture brushes this aside with contempt. The idea that when you are ladling out the money of the taxpayer you should impose tests and consider whether there will be a proper return for the expenditure appears to be so ridiculous as not to be worthy of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman
and his associates, apparently, are still under the delusion that they are going to solve the great problems of this country by pouring out the taxpayers' money like water out of a bucket. On the contrary, they will only make things worse. Every time they add to the taxpayers' burden by any expenditure of money on works which are useless they are aggravating the problem of unemployment, and the difficulties which face agriculture.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I read this Amendment in a somewhat different way to that of the right hon. and gallant Member who proposed it, and other of my hon. Friends. Under the framework of the Clause it is provided by Subsection (3) that under certain conditions the Minister can serve a notice on the owner to treat a piece of land and the question as to whether those conditions have been fulfilled come under Subsection (5), and it can be referred to arbitration in case of dispute. In the latter part of Clause 3, after it has gone to arbitration and the amount of compensation has been assessed, there is a loophole to the Minister to get out of all that he has done and all the expense and trouble to which he has put the landlord. That is to say, if he comes to the conclusion, having regard to the amount of compensation that has been awarded, that it will be unreasonable to carry on the proceedings he has commenced he can serve a further notice. The Amendment says that that is very hard on the landlord; and I think it is. The Amendment provides that if that notice is served the landowner shall have the right to go to the arbitrator to see whether the Minister was right in his view that
the total expenditure involved would be justified having regard to any additional return which might reasonably be expected to be obtainable from the land after the execution of the works specified in the notice.
If I am right in my view of the effect of the Amendment, and considering the words at the beginning of Sub-section (5):
In the event of any dispute between the Minister and any person upon whom a notice or a copy of a notice has been served in accordance with the provisions of the two last foregoing sub-sections
which apply, of course, to either notice, to the original notice to treat or to the notice of abandonment, then the Amend-
ment refers solely to the notice of abandonment, and I think it is quite proper that this loophole which has been given the Minister—as to whether he has rightly exercised his discretion—should also go to arbitration. I shall vote for the Amendment.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I have some knowledge of the problem of land reclamation. It is almost impossible in many parts of the country to find land which you can reclaim with any hope of letting it at a profit or making a reasonable profit out of it after you have paid all the expenses of reclamation. I agree that it might be of great advantage to the community to reclaim certain areas of land, or to improve certain areas of land. A vast quantity of land in the West Country has been reclaimed for wheat growing, and for oat growing, when the price of cereals was high, but it has now gone back again to grass or to fallow. If we are to go on to these lands and bring them back to cultivation there should be some definite limit fixed on the amount we propose to spend. I do not want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that he must only reclaim land if he can show that there is going to be a profit. I doubt whether it will be possible to do that anywhere in this country, even in Wales, because they are not such good cultivators or so thrfity as people in other parts of the country.
Once again the Minister has absolutely turned down a proposal as if the money of the taxpayer was of no account whatever. I join with many of my hon. Friends in wishing to see a genuine return to the land all over the country, wherever possible, but I fear that unless the Amendment is incorporated in the Bill there will be a waste of money, and that within a year or two the country will be driven into reaction against people getting back to the land. We have heard a great deal from various speakers on this side of the House on this question, but

there are other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen present who could give us very valuable advice. At a time like this, on a matter of vital importance to the country, I think we might have some words from the Father of the House to help us out of our difficulty. This is one of his pet subjects, and I would feel deeply grateful to him if he could help us on this particular occasion.

Mr. J. JONES: In vain is the net set in sight of the bird.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know what birds the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is after, but he would have to be much quieter than he is in this House if he wanted to catch any bird. I was keeping Strictly to my point until the hon. Member interrupted. Unless we can have something further from the Government, in the shape of a definite guarantee, the House has absolutely no justification in taking any course other than the course of supporting the Amendment.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I had no intention of intervening, but the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) invited those who had some experience on this subject to express their views. I have some peculiar knowledge with regard to the reclamation of land. There is a part of the country within the Fenland area where reclamation has taken place under private enterprise. Owing to the depth of the peat the reclaimed land will not produce corn or any other crops, and it has not given any return to those who spent their money on reclamation. I support the Amendment because I would like to save the taxpayer from such a loss of money as I have known private individuals to incur in the past.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 235.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[4.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beaumont, M. W.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Albery, Irving James
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Butler, R. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken, B.
Cattle Stewart, Earl of


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, sir P. W, (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Chapman, Sir S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Salmon, Major I.


Colville, Major D. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davison, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lymington, Viscount
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, Sir F.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Tinne, J. A.


Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Fison, F. [...]. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wardlaw-Ml[...]ne, J. S.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Connor, T. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Withers, Sir John James


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsbotham, H.



Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Sir George Penny and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dagger, George
Hayes, John Henry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Day, Harry
Herriotts, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Arnott, John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hoffman, P. C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Dukes, C.
Hopkin, Daniel


Attlee, Clement Richard
Ede, James Chuter
Here-Belisha, Leslie


Ayles, Walter
Edmunds, J. E.
Horrabin, J. F.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Barnes, Alfred John
Foot, Isaac
Isaacs, George


Barr, James.
Freeman, Peter
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Batey, Joseph
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Johnston, Thomas


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bellamy, Albert
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T, H.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Glassey, A. E.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Blindell, James
Gossling, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gould, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Kinley, J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Granville, E.
Kirkwood, D.


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Knight, Holford


Brooke, W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lang, Gordon


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lathan, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Buchanan, G.
Hall, capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawrence, Susan


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Cameron, A. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lawson, John James


Carter, W.
Harbord, A.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, George D.
Leach, w.


Clarke, J. S.
Harris, Percy A.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lees, J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Compton, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.
Logan, David Gilbert


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayday, Arthur
Longbottom, A. W.




Longden, F.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Lunn, William
Palin, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


McElwee, A.
Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. philip


McEntee, V. L.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


McKinlay, A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stephen, Campbell


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Pole, Major D. G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Potts, John S
Sutton, J. E.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, W, B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


McShane, John James
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Raynes, W. R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtie, Ernest


Mansfield, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tinker, John Joseph


Marcus, M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tout, W. J.


Markham, S. F.
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Marley, J.
Romeril, H. G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Marshall, Fred
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Vaughan, David


Mathers, George
Rothschild, J. de
Viant, S. P.


Matters, L. W.
Rowson, Guy
Walkden, A. G.


Maxton, James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Walker, J.


Melville, Sir James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Messer, Fred
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watkins, F. C.


Middleton, G.
Sanders, W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mliner, Major J.
Sandham, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Moriey, Ralph
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Scott, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
West, F. R.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Westwood, Joseph


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, Ni
Sherwood, G. H.
White, H. G.


Mort, D. L.
Shield, George William
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Murnin, Hugh
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Naylor, T. E.
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)



Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Paling.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, after the word "Institution," to insert the words "or the president of the Land Agents' Society."
The Land Agents' Society is a chartered society, and I suggest that including this alternative consultation in the Bill would be helpful, because the Land Agents' Society is more likely to have local knowledge of local conditions than the Surveyors' Institution.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Land Agents' Society is the only society which exists specifically for those concerned in the management of land, and for the profession of land agency. It is a highly professional body and its members are admitted by examination. The amount of land which is in charge of members of the society, throughout the country, at the present time is well over 10,000,000 acres. The society is in close touch with Government Departments and has received, from time to time, the warm thanks of various Departments for assistance rendered on highly technical questions connected with land. There is, of course, no conflict whatever
in this matter between the Land Agents' Society and the Chartered Surveyors' Institution—in fact, about 25 per cent. of the members of the Land Agents' Society are also members of the Surveyors' Institution—but I think it right to urge the claims of the Land Agents' Society that, in a matter of this kind, which concerns land in this country, in such important ways, if any dispute arises it should be open to the parties to have the choice of the president of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution or the president of the Land Agents' Society. The Minister was good enough, when this matter was raised in Committee, to say that he would give it consideration and I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Attlee): The hon. and gallant Member is quite right when he recalls that in Committee the Minister said he would have a look at this proposal but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman said he did not like it very much. The Minister entirely agrees, as we all agree, with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment as to the high standing of the Land Agents'
Society. It will, however, be recognised that the general rule in matters of this sort hitherto has been to put in the President of the Surveyors' Institution. The idea of putting in a reference of this sort is that, in the event of the parties failing to agree to an arbitrator, there should be named some definite and final person to whom the matter can be referred. I do not know how the suggested alternative would work out—whether the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and the President of the Land Agents' Society are to take turns, or in what way it would be arranged. Again there might be difficulty if one of the parties wanted the President of the Surveyors' Institution and the other wanted the President of the Land Agents' Society. On the whole, the Amendment would complicate the matter and, without casting the slightest slur on the high qualifications of members of the Land Agents' Society we consider it better to follow the usual precedent in this matter.

Mr. J. JONES: A few evenings ago we were discussing the Trade Disputes Bill. To-night we are discussing the Agricultural Land Bill and I notice that while strong objection was raised by hon. Members opposite, on the first occasion, to working people having any right to interfere in matters concerning industry, we are now told that particular organisations of technical experts connected with land ought to be allowed by statute to come in and interfere with Government land legislation. That is Sovietism. Yet this proposal comes from the very people who have been denouncing us for supporting so-called Bolshevism, because we claimed the right on behalf of the trade unionists of the country to take their part in industrial matters. I would like to ask right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench do they really agree with this kind of thing? Who are the members of the Surveyors' Institution? Who are these experts? I have been a member of a local authority for 26 years and I know that the experts "lead us up the garden" every time. When we decide upon a policy then the experts come in and God knows where we go. If the Government have the courage which they ought to have in these matters they will tell these bodies that they can come along in the
ordinary way, but that they are to have no statutory right to interfere in Government legislation.
Who does the land agent represent? Generally, a landlord goes abroad for the best part of his life, or at any rate some part of it, and the land agent then looks after the landlord's affairs and looks after himself better. These are the people who claim the right, automatically, to come in and tell us in this House what should or should not be done. This Amendment ought not to be accepted because it simply means allowing a, body of people like surveyors or land agents to have this power of interference. They act for the other chap who knows nothing about it. He may claim, as he did during the Education Debates here, that he has all the brains, but he has to buy the brains; he has not got them himself. He has to ask somebody else to do the job for him. It is not right that our legislation should be hampered by these gentlemen and no statutory right of this kind should be given to them. If the trade union movement asked that its president, the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) should be automatically appointed on committees dealing with industrial matters, what an outcry would be raised by hon. Members opposite. We would be told by them that we were claiming a privilege although they themselves are always asserting privileges here. They claim that they are the only people who know—and the more they talk the less we know. As far as I am concerned, I say that there should be no privilege for anybody and equal rights for all, and when a body of this kind puts forward special claims, those claims ought to be turned down. If we want any advice it ought to be advice given on behalf of every section of the community.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
(8) If by reason of the execution by the Minister under this section of reclamation, drainage, or other work on any piece of land damage is caused to any land adjacent thereto, the Minister shall make good any such damage for which he would have been liable if he had been a private person.
The object of this Amendment is to place upon the Minister a liability which un-
doubtedly would fall on any statutory undertaker or even on any local authority who entered into land, by virtue of the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act and, in so doing, caused injury to somebody else. As far as the ordinary statutory undertakers is concerned, I think this matter is dealt with in the case of Kirby versus The School Board for Harrogate, but I am not so clear that the same thing applies in the case of the Minister, because the position under this Measure is that the Minister may hold this land on behalf of the Crown, and it is a well-known principle of English law that you cannot sue the Crown, and therefore you cannot, incidentally, sue a Government Department in this respect at all. The kind of case which I have in mind is where the Minister takes land under the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act and where the only access to that land, once you leave the King's highway, is by means of private service roads which were not constructed to bear heavy traffic. In order to carry out the necessary operations the Minister, or whoever undertakes the work on his behalf, may have to bring along that road steam engines and other machines, vastly in excess of the weight which the road was constructed to carry. I can assure the Minister that that is not an inconsiderable problem in rural life.
Supposing the result should be that these engines or waggons break culverts, or knock the bottom out of a road belonging to some other landowner, who also has to use this service road, such landowner may find himself put to considerable expense and trouble in repairing the damage unless some definite liability is placed on the Minister under this Bill. I have had some correspondence with the Department on the subject, and I understand that their defence is that if anybody is undertaking this work on behalf of the Minister, you can sue the individual and the Minister would have to pay, but I suggest that that is not a satisfactory position. The Minister takes these powers, and it is said that under Section 68 of the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act he is liable for damage, but I am not clear that he is. As I read that Section it only refers to compensation where the action of a statutory undertaker interfered with rights and easements such as ancient lights or restrictive
covenants. I am not clear that Section 68 of the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act really covers this point, and, in any case, surely there should be some words to this effect in the present Bill. Short of putting in some definite words, 5.0 p.m. I am doubtful whether there is any liability on the Ministry, and therefore whether any person injured must not trust to repayment simply as an act of grace by the Department, to which he has no legal right. I do not think that people should be put into that position by this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
In all these questions of damage done by the State in any form, it should be borne in mind that the State should set a good example to individuals. There is no reason why, if the State commits damage in any of its activities, the State should be immune. It cannot be argued that everything that the State undertakes is for the benefit of all the component individuals who form the State. On the contrary, it may be quite a limited number of people that the action of the State is intended to benefit, but if the action of the State, intended to benefit a limited number only, should at the same time inflict damage upon any other limited number of people, then surely the State should express its willingness to settle any claim with the utmost promptitude, just as any individual ought to do so. The State should set the model in this respect, and it is because I think there is a tendency abroad in the minds of some people to think that the State can do no wrong that we ought to be very jealous in this House of guarding the rights and liberties of individuals. On that ground alone, apart from all technical reasons for which I think this Amendment should be supported, I desire to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigle Aitchison): We are in entire agreement with the purpose of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise), who seconded it, but the view which we take, after very careful consideration, is that the Amendment is
really unnecessary to effect that purpose. We understand that it is desired to make it quite plain that where damage is done to adjacent land, through operations on land that is taken by the State, liability will attach to the Crown. The hon, and gallant Member for Oxford has referred to the well accepted principle which exempts the Crown from liability, a principle that is not confined to land, but applies also to contracts; but I think the hon. and gallant Member failed to notice that the land to be taken under the provisions of this Bill will be land held on ordinary tenure by a Ministry of State. It is, accordingly, in quite a different position from land which is held by the Crown in virtue of the inherent rights of the Crown, land which, to use a technical term, is held jure coronæ.
In these circumstances, we are satisfied, after giving the matter very full consideration, that a claim would lie in respect of damage against the Minister under Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and I need not remind the House that the Lands Clauses Act is incorporated in the Bill for the purposes of compensation in regard to any land that may be taken by the State and that may be damaged in consequence of operations under the Measure. Accordingly, I am in a position to assure the House that we have looked into this matter very carefully and that the Amendment is unnecessary. In these circumstances, we are anxious that this Amendment should not be pressed, because we feel that if it is pressed and we make a special provision for this particular case, we may cast some doubt upon the general rule of law that where land is held by a Department under the ordinary feudal tenure, liability attaches if any damage is done. Therefore, I hope the hon. and gallant Members will not press the Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I have been interested in what the Scottish Lord Advocate has said, and I am curious to know if that is the view of the English law or of the Scots law only. As I understand the matter, under Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act it is clear that in the assessment of compensation any damage done would be payable in respect of other land owned by the same owner as the person whose land had been taken, but surely, in the case of powers given to any undertaker, whether a private person
or the Crown, authorised to put in operation powers under the Lands Clauses Act for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Bill, nobody could claim any damage for anything that occurred on other land.
That is the trouble. Private individuals always suffer where the land is acquired by a railway company or any other public body of undertakers; the person whose land was not taken has no remedy, either for a nuisance or tort, because this House gives statutory authority to them to carry out the purposes ordained by Act of Parliament under which they are acting. I am a little surprised to hear that an adjacent owner would have any right at all in this case. I am only speaking offhand from my recollection of the law, but I am deeply surprised to hear that if the person carrying out this work should happen to be the Government, the Government could be sued at all. I should have thought the Mover of the Amendment was right in his view of the law, though whether the Amendment which he has moved would carry out the object at which he aims, I am not so clear.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: This is a very unsatisfactory way of meeting a point. We get an appeal from the Lord Advocate not to press this Amendment, because he does not understand what the law will say about it, and we have the situation of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) not agreeing with the interpretation given by the Lord Advocate. It is a very important point if the law is at all doubtful, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend should press for an assurance at least that before the Bill reaches another place the matter will be looked into again. The Lord Advocate has said he is quite prepared to acknowledge the justice of the case, that a neighbouring owner should get compensation for damage, but it should be made quite clear that he is to get it. There is an Amendment lower on the Paper which talks about works of maintenance. These works of maintenance are very large, and I gather that this particular Amendment would refer to all those works of maintenance; in other words, you might suffer damage from all those works of maintenance, which is a very big liability to take on, if you are a neigh-
hour of a Government farm and suffer damage by fire from sparks falling on to hayricks and so on. It is a very important question, and if you are damaged by the owner of the Government farm, you should be requited. If there is any doubt in the matter, I do hope we shall get an assurance that it will be cleared up in another place.

Captain BOURNE: I do not wish to press the Amendment, but will the Minister of Agriculture give us an undertaking to give this matter further consideration before the Bill goes to another place? We all agree as to what we want, but the legal point is somewhat complicated and obscure, and I agree with the last speaker that it is of great importance that the thing should be made clear, if posible. I realise the legal difficulties, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look into the question between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place, I will not press the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I will give that undertaking with pleasure. According to the understanding previously arrived at, the question has been looked into with great care by the Law Officers and our legal advisers, and their opinion has been given, with regard also to the Scottish law, by the Lord Advocate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, after the word "land," to insert the words "or hop gardens."
This Amendment and the one following, to insert "or osier-beds," are put down to ascertain why certain forms of agricultural land were omitted from the definition given in the Clause. It seems very inconvenient that in making the definition of agricultural land we should get varying definition in varying Acts. Some Acts included in agriculture what this Clause has here, but I think hop gardens have always been included. Some go wider and include forests, and so, if you use the word "agriculture," or the words "agricultural land" or "agricultural purposes" in any Act, you are uncertain what is meant. This Amendment has largely been put down in order to ascertain why a certain aspect of agriculture, and one that is normally re-
garded as an agricultural occupation, is omitted from the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: The definition is here included for the reason that it is desirable to have a definition, but I am advised that hop gardens are included in the expression "land as arable." The expression "osier-beds" is not included, and I should be willing to accept its inclusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 42, at the end, insert the words "or osierbeds."—[Captain Bourne.]

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(d) the expression works of maintenance' means the repair or reconditioning of farmhouses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads and water supply; and
(e) the expression 'agricultural buildings' has the same meaning as in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
This Amendment is put down as the result of an undertaking given after a very long discussion in Committee, when I promised a definition of "works of maintenance," in order to make clear what are the works referred to earlier in the Clause. I think that the definition which is embodied here covers the usual obligations of the agricultural landlord, and they are obviously works which, it not executed, would be likely to result in the land falling into an unsatisfactory condition. Hon. Members may call my attention to the expression "reconditioning." That is put in because it is quite clear that if, for instance, we had to deal with an antiquated cowshed 200 years old, it would not be sufficient to put a few tiles on the roof in order to make it watertight; it would have to be put into a condition to meet modern requirements. Otherwise, I think that it covers the various works which are generally understood as being included in the maintenance of land of this character.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet the arguments which we raised in the discussion in Committee,
and the only caveat which I have to enter is with regard to the use of the word "reconditioning." The right hon. Gentleman instanced the case of an old cowshed, and said that it needed something more than ordinary repairs. Surely if it is allowed to be used as a cowshed at all, under the Milk and Dairies Order, and Regulations of that kind, it has to be in fact a reconditioned cowshed before it is allowed to be used. How far can the word "reconditioning" apply to farmhouses? In regard to the reconditioning of an old picturesque Elizabethan Cotswold farmhouse, for instance, would the Minister under this Sub-section have power to compel the owner to modernise it completely? No doubt, possibly in the interests of scientific hygiene, it would be a good thing to do, but it would be at the expense of a great deal of the comfort and picturesqueness of England if we had to recondition all the old farmhouses in the country. I hope that the way in which the lawyers interpret this word will not be the kind of interpretation that they sometimes put on such redundant words. The word "reconditioning" here must be intended to mean something more than the ordinary use of the word "repair" as it appears in all the Housing Acts and Measures of that kind.
It is important in all these Statutes that words imposing obligations, not only upon the taxpayer, but upon private individuals, should be very carefully considered. While it may be necessary to recondition drains, embankments, ditches and the like, where it is a question of reclaiming land it is dangerous to use in an omnibus phrase of this kind the same word to cover dwelling-houses, agricultural buildings and various works other than the reclamation of land. It is one of those dangerous things that appear from time to time in Acts of Parliament, which Parliament ought to watch before passing them. Having said that, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having met the main request that was made in Committee that the question of what is meant by "works of maintenance" should be defined, and not left to prolonged litigation, which might have followed unless some fairly clear definition were included.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I would appeal to the Minister to say whether, with the
object of improving his Bill, he cannot dispense with the word "reconditioning"? It does not appear in the Bill, except in the margin of Clause 3, and it is a word that has only recently come into use at all. It is unknown to the law, and its meaning is absolutely uncertain. It is, apparently, meant to apply to "works of maintenance" which appear in Sub-section (3), the first words of which are:
If after receiving a report under the last foregoing sub-section with respect to any piece of land the Minister is satisfied that the piece of land is in a seriously neglected condition and that the condition thereof has been caused by the failure of the owner thereof to execute thereon any necessary works of maintenance.
To say that "works of maintenance" means "reconditioning," is to go back to the same thing. The word "repair" is a well known term of law, and is amply sufficient for the purpose. It means putting into substantial repair. "Reconditioning" might mean building a brand new building. "Repair" would mean making a building substantially fitted for the purpose for which it is used, and that, I gather, is the Minister's intention. I urge that in his own interest—not in any other wider interest at all—that it would be much better to leave the well-known term "repair," and he would be amply protected.

Mr. J. JONES: I am not a lawyer, thank God for that! I have heard so much of lawyers recently in this House, and I understand them less the more I listen to them. Some of us know something about reconditioning of property. Some of us are trustees of certain property, and we are bound at the end of the next five years to put the property back to the condition in which we got it 10 years ago. The landlord has a right to claim that we should put it back as he and his architectural advisers desire. They may ask us to produce a new building, and that is according to the law as it is at present understood. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) whether, if he were briefed upon the other side, he would not claim that the property should be placed as it was, and, ought not to be placed as it should be?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: My point was as to the necessity of the word "reconditioning," and my argument was that "re-
pair" is a word that has been construed by many judges, and is well known. "Reconditioning" is a new word, and will be subject to much litigation in future.

Mr. JONES: "Reconditioning" ought to mean something definite. It ought to mean that the people shall be provided with decent accommodation. We know what "repairing" means. I am not an agriculturist—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. JONES: I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, although I was born in the country, which some of the agricultural experts have never seen. Reconditioning is more important than so-called repairs. We in the towns, and particularly in the East End of London, know what "repairs" means. When they repair, you are being prepared for the next world. They do only just as much as they can in order to escape the sanitary inspector. So far as land is concerned, the idea is that the only repairs that the landlords will do are those which are sufficient to justify their drawing rent. That is the only idea they have. I suggest that "reconditioning" should mean putting the property on the land in as good a condition as the land itself.
People who live in cottages owned by the landowners, and whose lives are spent under conditions which are very often dictated by the landowners, ought to have their cottages kept in proper order. In the rural areas it is almost a privilege to get a little bit of repair work done apart from any question of reconditioning. The word "recondition" ought to mean the provision of proper accommodation for those who live upon the land and work it, and it ought not to be merely a question of studying the convenience of those who live away from the land but draw incomes from it, without doing any useful work. We who were brought up in the country but have come to the towns to try to get a living say that the word "recondition" as applied to the land ought not to mean merely the land which is cultivated, but also mean the cottages for the people who live on the land, so that they may be provided with decent housing conditions.

Colonel LANE FOX: There is one point on which we have not had much discussion. I presume that the Minister who is arranging to carry out these very considerable works has in mind the organisation through which he proposes to do the work. In the ordinary way the running of an agricultural estate involves a considerable staff—masons, joiners, bricklayers, are all required; there has to be a considerable organisation of skilled men and of materials. The carrying out of this scheme on the scale suggested by the Minister will be a work of considerable size and importance. Have the Ministry of Agriculture made any arrangements for doing building or drainage work or the various other repairs suggested? If so, is it proposed that they should set up a central staff to do the work, or how is it to be done? We all know that if the work is done by private contractors in each district it will be much more costly than if there were a properly organised staff to do it. What provision is the Minister making? What scheme has he thought out for undertaking this work? As far as I know, it is the first time that the Ministry of Agriculture have been charged with such duties, and I hope he will be able to give us the details before we endow him with the powers he seeks.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. and gallant Member is, I think, quite mistaken in his observations. There is no question here of whether the Ministry of Agriculture will have a staff of masons, bricklayers and others. The point is the question of inserting in the Bill words which will define what is meant by "works of maintenance." In this Amendment I am supplying such a definition. That is all that we are concerned with, and nothing further. As to "reconditioning," it does mean something more than repairing; it is meant to be more than repairing, though we do not mean the expensive enterprises about which the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) talked. All these Orders are subject to appeal, and the arbitrator will have to take into account whether the notices were reasonable, etc., when the case comes before him, and I am certain that no elaborate reconstruction will be required or approved by the arbitrator. At the same time, these words are necessary, I am
advised, in view of the conflict as to what "repair" does mean. We have looked into the meaning of the term "repair," and have come to the conclusion that it might not indicate all that might be properly and fairly required. I have instanced the case of an antiquated cowshed which is not now, and perhaps has not been for a long time, used as a cowshed. Perhaps the fabric is good enough, but something more may be required than mending holes in the walls if it is, as a cowshed, to be brought up to the reasonable requirements of local authorities. That is what this Amendment means. We ought to include in the definition words which will have that effect, and I am advised that without this Amendment the position will not be clear.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that probably we do require some word beyond the word "repair." I have had some experience of the word "reconditioning," having taken advantage of the Act under which one may be assisted to recondition houses. When, however, one has to recondition one does a great deal more than what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his references to making a cowshed which has tumbled down into a cowshed which could properly be used. The standard of reconditioning is very much higher than that. In many cases reconditioning has meant rebuilding a house, merely using the material again. With reference to what he said as to the arbitrator acting reasonably no doubt that is true, but that would be reasonable having regard to the words which are in the Measure. If some other words were used an arbitrator might say, "Well, this is quite enough to make the holding one which a farmer could use"; but if the word "reconditioning" were in the Measure, he might say, "I am bound by the word 'reconditioning,' and I am not able to say, having regard to the way in which 'reconditioning' is used in the Housing Acts, that this is not a reasonable reconditioning." In view of the difference of opinion in the House as to whether the right word is being used here, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the effect of the word "reconditioning" in order to see whether there is some intermediate word which
could be substituted, or whether we could be given some fuller definition of what is required to be done. The change could be made in another place.

Colonel LANE FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the questions I have put to him? He is definitely accepting a liability to execute certain works, and I ask him how he is going to execute them. He merely says that it is not necessary for us to consider that now. I suggest it will be necessary to have a, large organisation, and I want to know whether he has got it or is going to get it.

Dr. ADDISON: I must repeat that that point does not arise here. It is not a question of how the work is to be executed. If works are to be carried out by the Ministry or under their auspices, it is quite clear they will have to make suitable arrangements; but the particular way in which the work is to be carried out does not arise here.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to acquisition of and dealing with land by Minister.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, to leave out the words "by any corporation or company."
The deletion of these words is designed to ensure that property belonging to, say, the Central Electricity Board or the Electricity Commissioners would be safeguarded.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Section one or Section two of this Act of any land which forms part of—

(i) any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or land adjoining a dwelling-house, or garden attached thereto;
(ii) any home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house;
(iii) any woodland;
(iv) any land cultivated for osiers;
(v) any bolding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds for the purposes
2171
of income tax where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the holding is the principal means of livelihood of the occupier thereof;
(vi) any land which is not used or not intended to be used for agricultural purposes."

This additional proviso is designed to place some limitation on the compulsory powers to acquire land for the purposes of this Bill. In the preceding proviso lands occupied for certain purposes are exempt from the land which the Minister is authorised to acquire compulsorily, for example, railways, docks, canals and water and other public undertakings, and so is any land which forms part of any common or town or village green, or which is a public park, garden or pleasure ground. This Amendment proposes to exempt other lands which are regarded as equally unsuitable for the purposes of the Ministry. First of all, it is proposed to exempt—
any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or land adjoining a dwelling house or garden attached thereto.
I attach great importance to that item on the list, because it is quite clear that such land should not be used for the purposes of this Bill. It would alter the whole feature of the country-side and the life of the people. Such land is not suitable for large-scale farming experiments and demonstration farms. The second item in the Amendment refers to any land which forms part of
any home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house.
Home farms are not usually of great extent, but, by and large, they are probably the best-farmed farms of any in the country. All those things come under the owner's immediate supervision, and ought not to be acquired under this Clause. The home farm is clearly something which should not be taken either for a large-scale farm experiment or for a demonstration farm because, in the great majority of cases, home farms are admirable illustrations of how farming should be conducted. I also propose that any woodland shall be exempted. I do not think that there is any power in this Bill allowing the Minister of Agriculture to experiment in forestry. At the same time, we do not want woodland to be acquired and trees removed wholesale under any experiments
which the Minister may propose to make under this Bill. For these reasons, I hold that woodland should be exempted from the compulsory powers of acquisition.
My Amendment also proposes to exempt any land cultivated for osiers. It is very likely that in the near future we shall require to cultivate more land for osiers than we have done in the past; consequently there is no reason why that land should not be exempted. Paragraph (v) of my Amendment reads:
(v) any holding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds for the purposes of income tax where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the holding is the principal means of livelihood of the occupier thereof;
Probably, in the course of the day, we shall come to the second part of this Bill which is designed to set up a large addition to the number of smallholdings in the country. It would indeed be foolish if, under the part of the Bill with which we are now dealing, which authorises large-scale farming and experimental farms, we should at the same time authorise the Minister to acquire compulsorily land which is already in the hands of small cultivators for experimental farms. I do not want to see undone in this part of the Bill what the Minister proposes to do on a large scale in the next part of the Bill. I think all holdings of 50 acres or less in extent should be immune from this part of the Bill. The last proposal of my Amendment is to exclude
any land which is not used or not intended to be used for agricultural purposes.
Up to the present we have not been successful in placing any restrictions on the Minister with regard to large-scale farming, and I do not want to see any experiments carried out which would take over a great area of land which is not intended to be used for agricultural purposes. I do not think there will be any difficulty experienced in finding large areas of land in any county, whether it is clay land, light land or loam which is required. The effect of this Amendment is to limit the Minister's discretion as to what kind of land he can compulsorily acquire for the purposes of Part I and Part II of the Bill. That is the purpose of my Amendment. We made a similar proposal in Committee upstairs, but we were not
successful in getting it adopted. I hope that the House will now take a more kindly view of this proposal.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.
To take away the kind of land mentioned in this Amendment or land attached to a house would be a great disaster, and the value of the whole property might be very much depreciated by taking away certain kinds of land for agricultural purposes. I myself have a doubt as to the advisability of excluding woodland. There is land which is sometimes covered by soft timber near which there often is land suitable for the creation of poultry farms. There is often near woodland a certain quantity of land which is of little value for woodland purposes, but which might be of considerable value for other purposes such as poultry farming. With regard to land cultivated for osiers, I think such laud ought to be left out of the operation of this Measure. As to excluding holdings of 50 acres or less, such holdings are generally held by small men who are largely dependent for their success on being able to obtain cheap labour. The removal of such people from their holdings might be a very serious thing, and might have the effect of driving them to other occupations.
Many smallholdings are successful simply because they have the advantage of employing cheap labour at a very much less cost than the Government will allow anybody else to employ labour. That is the real reason why they have an advantage over the large farmer. Many smallholders have, by their own industry, and the industry of members of their own family, worked up a very good business in the home market, and although it may be argued that these people would receive compensation, my point is that no compensation is adequate for the loss inflicted upon them by taking them away from their own local market where they are known. Besides this, there is a great sentimental feeling for the home and the smaller the holding the greater the sentiment attached to it. We do not want to interfere with the sentimental feeling which attaches to the old home of a smallholder. For these reasons, I support this Amendment, and I hope the Minister of Agri-
culture will be able to give us some assurance that the points we have placed before him will be met in some form in the Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: This is an Amendment which was fully discussed upstairs. In regard to one part of it, I owe the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) an apology for what actually occurred last night. I do not think it ought to be assumed that the Government will be any more unreasonable in regard to these matters than other people. In 99 cases out of 100 those who buy properties on behalf of the Government behave like ordinary human and sensible people, and it ought not to be assumed that the Ministry of Agriculture is going to do anything more unreasonable than would be done by an ordinary private person.

Sir J. LAMB: The difference is that the Minister has compulsory powers.

Dr. ADDISON: Part of this Amendment was referred to last night. The Amendment provides that the State shall be precluded from buying certain bits of land. Is it reasonable that a buyer who wants a, farm should not be able to buy the home farm which, from the point of view of transport, being in a central position, is necessarily of great importance? What is the good of providing for the purchase of certain areas of land if you are going to say that the Government should not be allowed to buy this or that bit.

Mr. J. JONES: Look at my home farm! I have two rabbits.

6.0 p.m

Dr. ADDISON: In a number of estates for sale there is generally a place known as the home farm. It is true that an owner may say, in the case which is set out in the Schedule, that if it is desired to buy his land, he will not sell it without the house, but that the whole must be bought. That is fair, and it is provided for in the Schedule. This Amendment, also, would preclude our buying any woodland. Why should that be so? It might be very useful to have a spinney or wood which could be cut down for the purposes of the holding, and it is quite egregious that we should be prevented from acquiring a little bit of woodland in that way.
With regard to osiers, which are a favourite interest of the hon. Member for
Barnstaple, the other day I was down at the Rothamsted Research Station, and, if the hon. Member would pay a visit to Rothamsted, he would see there a demonstration of the fact that further investigational work is very desirable in regard to osiers. For instance, there is a. particular insect—I do not know what the name of it is—which bites at the top of the osier, and the result is that, instead of growing to a long willowy rod as it should do, it branches out and is of no use for the purpose for which osiers are grown. I can assure the hon. Member that, if he will go to Rothamsted, he will come back a, champion of this Bill and regret that he moved this Amendment.
As to the question of holdings of 50 acres or less, this Bill, as a matter of fact, puts a more onerous obligation upon the Minister than rests upon any private individual, because, in consequence of Amendments which were made in Committee, if we dispossess a man from a holding by its acquisition under this Bill we have to provide him with another holding if he wants it. That is all right, and I am not complaining at all. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that there is no particular reason for excluding such holdings in the case of estates which we may buy, since the holder has much better security than before, but there is no reason why we should be precluded from acquiring the land as part of an ordinary business proposition.
With regard to paragraph (vi) of the Amendment, which refers to land which is not being used for agricultural purposes, I would ask why in the world that should be excluded? I expect, judging from what the Forestry Commissioners have to give for land of this kind, that it would not cost much, and there may be patches of this, so to speak, scrub land which a very enterprising Ministry of Agriculture could manage as a demonstration farm, and so, as I hope will be the case, bring into use a great deal of land which may now be regarded as useless. Anyhow, they ought to have a chance of doing so. It would not cost much, and it is quite absurd to exclude the purchase of such land—it is not business.

Colonel ASHLEY: I should have been more impressed with the argument of the
Minister if it were very difficult at the present moment to buy agricultural land in this country. If land were so rare and expensive that it would be very difficult to purchase it at a moderate price, and the Minister might be held up to ransom by grasping landlords or smallholders, who would prevent him from getting this land for his large-scale experiments, I could understand his argument; but that is not the case. We contended earlier in the discussions on the Bill that without any compulsion at all the Minister would have got, at very reasonable prices, all the land that he could possibly need. I must not argue whether we should have compulsion or not, because it has already been decided that the Minister shall have compulsory powers, but I consider that those compulsory powers are quite unnecessary, and that he could get his land by voluntary agreement. We are, however, now dealing with the injustice that may be caused by the exercise of these compulsory powers. If the House gives to the Minister compulsory powers to purchase land, I think the House is perfectly entitled to say to him, "You may have these compulsory powers, but we will bind you down not to do so-and-so and so-and-so."
I hope that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment will not mind my saying that I do not think the osier beds and one or two of the other items really matter very much one way or the other; probably he thinks so himself. But I do feel rather strongly on the question of smallholdings. That is a definite case where a man who has spent all his life on his smallholding, where his father and grandfather may quite possibly have spent all their lives, where they may have been in possession for 200 years, and they may be compulsorily expropriated. It is no answer for the Minister to say that such people will get ample compensation. Ample compensation does not make up for the violence done to sentiment and to the love of the soil which is implanted in many people in this country. We know how difficult it has been in the past in Ireland, though ample compensation was offered to the smallholder, to get him to emigrate—that he would say, "No; I would rather have a hand-to-mouth existence on the land where I was born and where my
fathers have lived, and I will not take gold in order to go abroad, even though I may better myself." Again, it is no answer to say that the cases in which a smallholder may be compulsorily expropriated will be few. I do not care even if there are no more than one or two; you have no right to inflict possible injustice upon a man whose sole means of livelihood is his smallholding, who was born there and wants to die there. In view of the fact that there is so much land going begging in Great Britain, I cannot see why the Minister cannot, at any rate as far as smallholdings are concerned, accept the Amendment and prevent a possible injustice.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I want to put in a word for the osier. The right hon. Gentleman was rather brief in dealing with this question, because he said that a great deal of work remains to be done in connection with the pests and diseases of osiers. I quite agree with him that this Amendment represents rather a "mixed bag," but I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken that the smallholders have the strongest case. With regard to osiers, however, I understand that a definite request has been made that existing osier beds should be excluded. If the right hon. Gentleman wants land, either for large-scale farming or for demonstration farms—and the whole of this Amendment deals simply with experimental farming—if the right hon. Gentleman wants land for these purposes, and wants it so acquisitively that he is not prepared to leave it to the corporation to negotiate as an ordinary buyer in the market, but is himself going, as Minister, to acquire it compulsorily, I would ask him to leave the existing osier beds alone. If he desires to have a new Ministry of Agriculture demonstration osier farm, I would beg him not to go and buy compulsorily one of these existing osier farms, down in the west country. This industry is a very special one, which for generations has been associated with the basket-making industry, and while, no doubt, scientific work is wanted, I do think that, as they have asked to be excluded from the compulsory operations of the Minister, he should not take the existing osier beds of one of these long-established growers, but should try on his own account, on fresh land, to show how very much better it
can be done by the Ministry of Agriculture.
I agree that paragraph (vi) of this proposed Amendment is quite unimportant. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have a "bonanza" farm, as we now call it, on land that is not used or intended to be used for agricultural purposes, let him try, though we do not think that it is in the least likely to be a practical proposition. But the case of the smallholder is a very strong one. It is no use the Minister saying that he is going to try a large-scale farming experiment and sweep away a lot of smallholders whose principal means of livelihood are their smallholdings, giving them land elsewhere with which to start again to establish new market connections and so on. All through the proceedings on this Bill, we on this side of the House have emphasised the fact that our main objection to this Bill is that very proposal, and we shall lose no opportunity of recording our continued objection to clearing people off the land and joining holding to holding in order to make these large-scale farms. Therefore, we propose to divide the House on this Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: May I just intervene for the purpose of protesting once more against the misrepresentation of which the right hon. Gentleman was unconsciously guilty in the last part of his speech? I object to this Amendment because it would preclude the acquisition of holdings which might lie in the middle of an estate, but the provisions with regard to large-scale farming include words which were put in deliberately, and which have been defended explicitly on the ground that they provide for the continuance of smallholdings which happen to be there. No reasonable person would ever contemplate the wholesale sweeping away which the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, although he himself knows perfectly well that it would not be so, is a normal occurrence in matters of this kind. I will undertake to say that the security of tenure enjoyed by a holder of land acquired in these circumstances will be vastly better than before.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been learning lessons at Rothamsted. He quoted Rothamsted as
an authority as to why it would be right to interfere with osier beds, but Sir John Russell, the director of the Rothamsted Research Station, said nothing of the sort, nor is that his opinion at all. In point of fact, one of the reasons why English home farms are run on such good lines is because of the close touch that there is between them and the Rothamsted experiments, and the help that they get from Sir John Russell. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government would not be unreasonable in regard to these home farms, mansion houses, and so forth, but, if it is necessary to exclude the compulsory acquisition of such land when it is in the occupation of local authorities, because they are afraid that he might be unreasonable, why is it not equally natural that home farms under private management should be excluded in the same way?
If there is anything in this Bill at all, it lies in two points, which are that it is going to help employment, and that it is going to help agriculture. One thing that is perfectly certain is that the home farm and the mansion and pleasure grounds give more employment than any amount of farming or other agricultural land, and more than any Government farm would give. The most valuable help in the Bill would be to let those places which are giving more employment exist as they are at present. If you come to agriculture, it cannot be denied that the home farm is the best farm and gives the most employment. The home farm is better farmed and experiments are carried out there which make this Bill perfectly useless. If the money was spent in helping Rothamsted and home farms, it would be better both for agriculture and for employment. Anyone who wants to help unemployment in agriculture must accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. JONES: I am very much obliged to hon. Members opposite for giving us a lesson in confiscation, the idea being that the Government are doing wrong by buying up property. Some of us believe we ought to take it, because it is our own country, and we have a right to take the country, in the same way as we confiscate other people's countries when in times of danger we go to war. The arguments advanced by hon. Members
opposite seem most ridiculous. I come from a constituency where 800 families have got to move out because we have a great improvement in connection with a new dock road scheme, and they have no compensation. The only thing they get is alternative accommodation with, on the average, a 4s. increase in their rent. They muster for work at the docks twice a day, and they will have to travel more and pay increased fares.
I do not understand why there should be this difference of feeling as between the town worker and the land worker. Cannot hon. Members understand that they are all part and parcel of the same community? Our friends opposite are always talking about the rural situation. They never seem to realise the position of the worker in the town. We in the East End are up against the same proposition that you are talking about. We claim that it is a national matter and not a local question belonging to any county or town. If this Bill is going to make it better for the whole country and give people a chance to develop agriculture, it is worth having. Some people have spoken as though it was only to help a certain section of the agricultural community.
The land is not supposed to be bought. I should not like to see it bought. I should like to see it taken, but I am a compromiser. I am very generous. When we want to buy a bit of land to build houses in West Ham, land which we could buy 40 years ago for £40 an acre, we now pay £600 an acre to the patriots who talk about land as though they were the land. What do home parks and home farms matter to us? We have no home farms or home parks. If it is necessary for public purposes that their land should be taken, it ought to be taken. [Interruption.] You could do the same as I do and have a six-foot backyard. You have one advantage over us. You can always shift somewhere else, but we have to stop where we are. We cannot afford to keep chauffeurs and motor cars. Yet you object to your land being bought. I hope the day will come when we shall object to buying it off you, and when we shall do the same as you have done so often in pinching the land from the people.
This House of Commons has been used to take land away from the people, and
now, when we offer to buy it, we are told we must not even be allowed to buy it, but that we must leave it with those who have pinched it. The Minister is not to take anything unless he is allowed by an arbitrator. We know who the arbitrator will be. The court will be in Hell and the Devil will be the presiding magistrate. You will get your full pound of flesh. You need not be afraid. The landlord's interest will be well

looked after and the smallholder is the decoy duck. He is the man behind the scenes. He is always trotted out, like the widow and orphan. I hope you will suffer more in the future than you have ever done in the past.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 243.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[6.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Connor, T. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Athoil, Duchess of
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fermoy, Lord
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beaumont, M. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ramsbotham, H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hail, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, Leslie
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Bracken, B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bralthwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buchan, John
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Skelton, A. N.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, R. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somervilie, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Little, Sir Ernest Graham
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tinne, J. A.


Christle, J. A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Train, J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lymington, Viscount
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colville, Major D. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cranborne, Viscount
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wayland, Sir William A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, Sydney R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, Sir John James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain




Euan Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ayles, Walter
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Benson, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, Alfred John
Birkett, W. Norman


Angell, Sir Norman
Barr, James
Blindell, James


Arnott, John
Batey, Joseph
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret


Aske, Sir Robert
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bowen, J. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brooke, W.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Burgess, F. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cameron, A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lathan, G.
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Romeril, H. G.


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Compton, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Lees, J.
Scott, James


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Devlin, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edmunds, J. E.
Lunn, William
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Foot, Isaac
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Freeman, Peter
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snell, Harry


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Groves, Thomas E.
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marshall, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mathers, George
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Melville, Sir James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Middleton, G.
Townend, A. E.


Harbord, A.
Mliner, Major J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hardie, George D.
Morley, Ralph
Vaughan, David


Harris, Percy A.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Viant, S. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Walkden, A. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walker, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, s.)
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. G.


Herriotts, J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, C, H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry
Wise, E. F.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid



Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Isaacs, George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Ben Smith and Mr. Thurtle.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Perry, S. F.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Minister to provide smallholdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons.)

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, after the word "Minister," to insert the
words, "after consultation with the Minister of Labour."
This is a very simple Amendment, and I am inclined to think that probably the Minister will agree to it. If he is prepared to do so, I do not wish to
waste time upon it. At present, if the Minister is satisfied that any person whom is unemployed desires to lease a smallholding and so on, he has the power to provide him with one. We wish the words to read:
If the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Labour is satisfied.
The reasons for the Amendment are perfectly plain. The Minister himself cannot properly, without consultation with the Ministry of Labour, determine whether the bulk of the people, at any rate, are unemployed or not. There is no definition of "unemployed" in the Bill. He will most certainly, as far as insured persons are concerned, have to use the Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges, and, therefore, consultation with the Minister of Labour ought to be a matter of course. In the next place, the Minister of Labour is a person who, if the Minister wished to know, would be able to advise him as regards the individual capacity of the different persons, more particularly those who had been through a training college. We think that under those circumstances it is only right that the words "after consultation with the Minister of Labour" should be added in line 10. We have had, if I may refer to Scotland, some experience of what trouble can ensue in smallholdings in different parts of the country where, apparently, adequate consultation has not taken place, and it is for that reason that an Amendment of this kind cannot possibly be objectionable from the point of view of the Minister himself and can only be advantageous by ensuring that the knowledge, advice, and experience of the Minister of Labour would aid him in determining who among the unemployed were suitable people to be put on to smallholdings.

Mr. ATTLEE: Of course, everyone will agree that naturally the Minister of Agriculture in this work will be closely in consultation with the Minister of Labour on many points, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, but it is a different thing altogether to make it mandatory. The matter was discussed at considerable length upstairs in Committee and eventually the Amendment was withdrawn. If one looks at the whole of the Clause, he will see that the Minister has to be satisfied upon a number of things. He has to be satisfied with regard to some
things on which the Minister of Labour, naturally, should be consulted, and with regard to others on which he should not be consulted. While one wants full consultation between the two Ministers, and it is entirely desirable that the experience of the Minister of Labour should be put at the disposal of the Minister of Agriculture in this work, the Minister must primarily take responsibility in this matter, because the Minister has to be satisfied that a person is suitable from all angles. I do not think that you should divide responsibility in this matter. The point is very often stressed that you should put on to the land people suitable for the land, and, therefore, you have to keep the agricultural point very strongly in view. The view at the time was, and the view which we still hold is, that while, of course, there will be this consultation, it is not necessary to make it mandatory that in every case dealing with every person there should be prior consultation with the Minister of Labour.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I, very briefly, put these considerations to the Minister, because the objections which he urges have really no foundation or substance. He has said that quite naturally the Minister of Agriculture would consult with the Ministry of Labour. No doubt he ought to do so, but there is no security unless it is in the Bill, that he will do so. As everyone knows, it is precisely that lack of liaison between Departments which sometimes occurs, even in the best regulated Departments, and which causes failure to occur which otherwise would be avoided. As regards the other two points which the Minister has just made, the case is also quite clear. It is true that the Minister of Agriculture has to satisfy himself on a series of points—"A," "B," "C" and "D"—but if the words which I propose are inserted it would not be made mandatory for him to consult with the Minister of Labour on all those four points. He would only consult with him on the one point in which the advice and experience of the Minister of Labour, through his officials, would be of the greatest value to him.

Mr. ATTLEE: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Clause, he will see that the condition of the Minister having power to provide a smallholding is that
he has to be satisfied that a certain person has various qualifications. The Amendment adds another qualification—that the Minister after consultation must be satisfied—he will not have the power unless he has satisfied himself after consultation—about a person. Therefore, if you have an agricultural labourer out of work, the Minister will have to consult the Minister of Labour, who knows nothing about him, before he has the right to put him on to the land.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That was the second point which the hon. Gentleman made, and, if he had waited a moment, I would have satisfied him on that also. If he wishes to safeguard the matter entirely, he can perfectly well add—and I would at once be prepared, and I would ask my hon. Friends to be prepared to agree—the words "in the case of persons insured against unemployment." If he wishes to put in those words, I will gladly assent to them at once. That would confine it to the persons insured against unemployment and would free him in the case of all agricultural labourers who are not insured. Bearing those considerations in mind, I am sure he will see that the Amendment, with the addition, if he wishes it, which I have just mentioned, is entirely unobjectionable and one which we should prefer to see inserted.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman says that he has to satisfy himself by consultation with the Minister of Labour. In the case of agriculturists and people of that kind the Ministry of Labour know nothing whatever about them. Therefore the Amendment is only an addition, and the question of con-

sultation, clearly and obviously, only has reference to cases where the Minister of Labour knows something about the man. If the Minister consulted the Minister of Labour, through the departmental routine, about an agricultural labourer, the Minister of Labour would say that they knew nothing about him, so obviously that washes that matter out. The fact remains that the present Ministry are so much departmentalised that they cannot bear to put in an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Gentleman who is at present in charge of the Bill said that the natural thing was for the Minister to consult with the Ministry of Labour where possible. Of course, it is the natural thing for any normal Government, but for an abnormal Government, such as this, it is the natural thing to do nothing of the kind. We are desirous of inserting these words because of the extreme lack of knowledge on the part of the present Minister, and the hopeless incapacity of the Government for dealing with these things. We desire to insert the Amendment in order to give them some guidance and to lead their lack of knowledge into right channels. The Minister would be wise to accept the Amendment. I would urge him not to bring forward the sort of excuse that he has been making, but to look at these Amendments from the point of view that we are doing our best to make this Bill better in the interests of all. It is a difficult thing to do. If the Minister will not help us, I fail to see how the House of Commons can play their part.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 244.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[6.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Albery, Irving James
Boyce, Leslie
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bracken, B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Colville, Major D. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brass. Captain Sir William
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cranbourne, Viscount


Athoil, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Buchan, John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Bainiel, Lord
Butler, R. A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Beaumont, M. W.
Campbell, E. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovill


Bird, Ernest Roy
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P, D. (I. of W.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.


Ferguson, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fison, F, G. Clavering
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gronfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Gunston, Captain D. W,
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Muirhead, A. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hammersley, S. S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tinne, J. A.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J.
Train, J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Turton, Robert Hugh


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pownall, sir Assheton
Wells, Sydney R.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ramsbotham, H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Withers, Sir John James


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Renneff
Womersley, W. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Worthinqton-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Salmon, Major I.



Little, Sir Ernest Graham
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Liewellin, Major J. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir[...]


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
George Penny.


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Savery, S. S.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dukes, C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ede, James Chuter
Isaacs, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edmunds, J. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas


Angell, Sir Norman
Edwards, E, (Morpeth)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Arnott, John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Aske, Sir Robert
Foot, Isaac
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Ayles, Walter
Freeman, Peter
Kelly, W. T.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kirkwood, D.


Barr, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Knight, Holford


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Glassey, A. E.
Lang, Gordon


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Lathan, G,


Birkett, W. Norman
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Blindell, James
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Bondfield, Rt, Hon. Margaret
Granfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrence, Susan


Bowen, J. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawson, John James


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle)


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Leach, W.


Brooke, W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lees, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Logan, David Gilbert


Burgess, F. G.
Harbord, A.
Longbottom, A. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hardie, George D.
Longden, F.


Cameron, A. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lunn, William


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Charleton, H. C.
Haycock, A. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Chater, Daniel
Hayday, Arthur
McElwee, A.


Clarke, J. S.
Hayes, John Henry
McEntee, V. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
McKinlay, A.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
MacLaren, Andrew


Compton, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Daggar, George
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R.,Wentworth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hoffman, P. C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Day, Harry
Hopkin, Daniel
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Denman, Hon. R, D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mansfield, W.


Devlin, Joseph
Horrabin, J. F.
Marcus, M.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Markham, S. F.




Marley, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Marshall, Fred
Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Mathers, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Matters, L. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stephen, Campbell


Maxton, James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Melville, Sir James
Ritson, J
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Messer, Fred
Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.


Middleton, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Mills, J. E.
Rothschild, J. de
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Mliner, Major J.
Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Morley, Ralph
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tinker, John Joseph


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sanders, W. S.
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandham, E.
Vaughan, David


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Viant, S. P.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Scott, James
Walkden, A. G.


Murnin, Hugh
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Walker, J.


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shield, George William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oldfield, J. R.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shlliaker, J. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Simmons, C. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
White, H. G.


Palin, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wise, E. F.


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)



Pybus, Percy John
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out the word "either."
This Amendment is introductory to the real point, which is covered by the further Amendment which stands in my name—in page 10, line 14, to leave out from the word "employment" to the word "and" in line 20.
The paragraph which I seek to delete limits the eligibility of agricultural workers to those who have been thrown out of their employment owing to the acquisition of land on which they were working, in connection with these schemes. The Committee inserted a new Clause, now Clause 7, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), without any resistance from the Government, because they saw that the majority of the Committee was very strongly in favour of the principle laid down in Clause 7, which affords equally favourable opportunities to all agricultural workers to obtain smallholdings, regardless of any question of unemployment. The greater obviously includes the less, and it is now necessary to cut out from the Bill the much smaller concession to agricultural workers which was contained in the Bill as originally drafted. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can very well justify the maintenance of the particular proposal which I propose
to leave out. It will remove all doubts if he completes the concession to agricultural workers by taking out the limitation which was originally in the Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that the greater includes the less, and that we have inserted Clause 7, which applies to all agricultural labourers, whether they have been displaced from their employment or not. I agree that it would be redundant to leave in the words which are the subject of the Amendment. Therefore, I propose to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 14, to leave out from the word "employment" to the word "and" in line 20.—[Mr. Guinness.]

7.0 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, after "1908," to insert the words:
or under the provisions of this Act relating to compensation for loss of employment.
This Amendment is to bring into conformity with the other Act the provisions in regard to a man being eligible for compensation where displaced from small-holdings. It is in order to bring it into conformity with what is included in the Act that we wish to put in these words.

Captain BOURNE: As the Minister has taken out the provisions in this Clause relating to agricultural workers, I am not quite certain that the drafting of this part will not have to be looked into, because anybody can prove compensation is possible under the Act. I think the Sub-section needs looking into.

Dr. ADDISON: I think that is a good point, and I will look into it.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, after the word "for," to insert the words:
enabling him to undertake the business of a smallholder, including sums for.
This is in order to make clear the definitions of stock and breeding stock to enable the man to undertake the business of a smallholder.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
No such stock or articles as are referred to in this section shall be made the subject of a charge under the provisions of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928.
This Amendment was moved in Committee, and I should like to call attention to the words which the Lord Advocate used on that occasion. He said:
I think it is impossible to say that there is not some substance in this Amendment.
For a cautious Scotsman that is as much to say that the Amendment is important. He went on further:
There is a great deal to be said for the view that there should be some provision against such stock being made the subject of a charge under the provisions of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928.
At the end of his speech he said:
We do not feel able to take the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed but I have the authority of the Minister to say we shall be very glad, in consultation with hon. Gentlemen opposite, to consider this point between now and Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 9th December, 1930; cols. 461–462.]
I would like to make a protest at the fact that since then we have heard absolutely nothing as to what steps have been taken. Members on this side have often heard the statement from the Front Bench that a Minister will consider it and consult us, but there the matter ends. I think it
is time a protest was made about the number of occasions on which that has been done and nothing has eventuated. We think the Minister should at least have made some communication to us about this matter. I therefore move the Amendment in order to give the Minister an opportunity of saying something on the point. It is obvious, as far as the substance of the Amendment is concerned, that it would not be fair to people who are likely to be affected by the Agricultural Credits Act, and who lend money on it that they should lend money on stock that is not actually in the possession of the smallholder. If there is any danger of that, I suggest that these words, or similar words, should be inserted.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment, and I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member is not aware where it would lead us. I find that if these words were inserted and a smallholder had acquired stock and a capital loan was made under the Bill he would not, although he might have repaid the loan, be able to use that capital for the purpose of obtaining advances under the Agricultural Credits Act. That would be absurd. In the case of an ordinary loan by a bank, if the stock was had on loan or was being paid for by the Government, it would be improper for him to borrow on it while it was mortgaged to the State. As far as the Agricultural Credits Act is concerned, I am advised that the result of the insertion of these words would be that, although he might have had certain things on loan at the beginning and actually have paid for them, he would not be able thereafter, on discharge of the loan, to use these articles if he wanted advances under the Agricultural Credits Act. Therefore, there is no advantage in the Amendment, and it might lead to hardship.

Mr. GUINNESS: I would suggest that the solution of the difficulty would be to amend the Amendment so as to limit the disability involved by the loan on those forms of agricultural stock to the period during which instalments are due. If that were done, it seems to me the Amendment could be accepted without any hardship to the borrower and with advantage to the lender. It does not seem to me to
be honest for people to charge with an agricultural mortgage property which is not really theirs but which in a sense really belongs to the public. I cannot see from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that under the law as it stands there will be anything to stop such a charge. The man should disclose it to the bank, but I do not gather there will be any compulsion, and I should think it would be merely an improvement of this provision to say that while this stock which was advanced out of public money had not been paid for it should not be charged. It is essential that once it becomes the property of the smallholder it should be free from all other charges and be made the foundation for further credit. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should find some form of words to limit the Amendment in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am in some doubt about this matter, and, as I observe the Minister is without any legal assistance, I cannot help pointing out that the situation we seem to be getting into is one of much difficulty. The proviso makes it quite plain that the articles which are supplied to the smallholder become the smallholder's property. The purchase price of these articles is deemed to be a loan, and, that being the position, those articles which then become the property of the smallholder are articles which he is in a position quite lawfully and legally to claim. In these circumstances, I find myself in the exceptional position of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that, if the Amendment were inserted, there would be real legal difficulties in the working of it. At the same time, I cannot help commenting on what I have heard as a result of a Debate which took place upstairs, namely, that this question, having been raised in Committee, it ought to have been considered, that we on this side ought to have been consulted, and that it should not be left now to the Minister to have to get assistance from the legal Members on this side in order to make the situation quite plain.

Mr. GUINNESS: Could we not have an answer from the Minister as to the possibility of further Amendments and adding at the end the words:
While any instalment payments are still outstanding
or words to that effect?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot imagine any advantage would follow from the insertion of such words. The first thing the bank will do in the case of a, smallholder who goes to it for an advance will be to inquire what are his assets and his position and whether the assets are on loan or not. If the man has paid, why should he be prevented from obtaining a loan? Those who direct the work of the agricultural groups will take good care that they do not lend when there is a loan upon it from somebody else.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I am not quite sure I follow the right hon. Gentleman. I think we must press this matter unless the right hon. Gentleman does get legal information in support of his views that some Amendment here is unnecessary. The position is that his man is to be the possessor of these assets for which he has not paid and that his creditor, the State, to whom he has to pay for them has not any charge upon the assets. Is that correct?

Dr. ADDISON: There are advances upon the assets, advances which he has to repay.

Sir D. HERBERT: That may be so. I do not profess to be a lawyer in the strict sense of the term, but I venture respectfully to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman clearly knows less about the law than I do. It is no use to say that, because you have lent money to this man in order that he may get these things which become his property therefore you have a charge on him.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Gentleman should read the text, and he will see that this relates to the advance of certain goods, stock and so on. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms are really quite beside the point, and he should read the Bill.

Sir D. HERBERT: The right hon. Gentleman still has not answered my question. I will put it in the form of a statement. The State, which is this man's creditor, has no charge on these assets. If the right hon. Gentleman lends me £500 to buy a motor car and I go and buy it, the right hon. Gentleman has no charge on that motor car, and
there is no reason why I should not go and sell it for £400 and spend the money on my own enjoyment.

Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment would not prevent that in the very least.

Sir D. HERBERT: But we should prevent the man being able to borrow money from some other source on the security of these assets in such a way that if he fails it is the subsequent lender who is able to sell these assets and get what he can for them, while the State gets nothing. I say definitely that that is the fact; and it is a most ridiculous thing to put into an Act of Parliament. No Government should lend money to a person to enable him to buy certain goods and have no charge whatever upon those goods. Surely, there should be some security for this kind of advance. This is not a party matter at all. The right hon. Gentleman must answer this case in some way or admit that some amendment is required. Up to the present he has not answered it, and I still ask him to accept a revised Amendment or give a perfectly definite undertaking that he will see that the attention of another place is drawn to the matter. I feel certain that their attention will be given to this matter without it being brought to their notice, and that they will do something to alter it, but it would be much more to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman if he put it in proper order before the Bill goes to another place.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman, I should have thought, would have been, not that we ought not to have these words because they do not do enough, but that we ought to have much stronger words. Let the House observe the position into which we have got. We are giving to these men implements as an alternative to making a loan. If the State makes a loan then there is an obligation to repay the purchase money, but here, instead of the State making a loan, it provides the man with these particular articles. The Minister of Agriculture says, "What is the good of putting in any words at all, because the man might be able to sell these articles." Is it or is it not intended that the State shall have some lien upon the articles which the loan will provide, and which in this case are provided by the State until the
purchase price of the articles has been paid off? Is it intended that there should be any security at all? If that is not the intention then I think it should be. If, instead of making a man a loan, you give him articles there should be some lien for the State upon the articles. A man should not be at liberty to get £100 worth of equipment one day and go and sell it the next, leaving the State £100 out of pocket.
All that the right hon. Gentleman does is to say that it is no good putting in these words. I think it is, because they prevent the man dealing with these articles in a way which will secure him a further loan. If he does raise such a loan the bank, if he should fail, would be able to realise these articles and repay their loan. In that case the State would lose the money and the only people who would get any advantage would be the bank. So far from these words being unnecessary I think they should go a good deal further. The State should have some security not only for the loan but that the security is put to its proper purpose, otherwise the unscrupulous smallholder could behave in exactly the same way as the Russian Government does with the advantage which the British Government gives them at present. They pay for goods with credit and at once sell them for cash.

Mr. MacLAREN: Where?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All over the world. I could give the hon. Member half a dozen examples. But because we have been futile in one direction do not let us be futile in another. It is perfectly plain that the smallholder, who has received a gift of these articles from the State, should have the use of them until such time as he has paid off the purchase price, and if he does not pay back the full value that he should not have the right to sell them. A much more drastic Amendment is necessary in order to give the State absolute security in this matter.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words:
until such purchase price has been paid off.
This will cover the difficulty mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture, in regard
to cases under the Agricultural Credits Act. It will not prevent the man selling his stock and using the proceeds to pay off his debt.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) is suffering under the same disability as the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert)—he has not read the Bill. If he had his criticism would have been a little more valuable.

Sir D. HERBERT: That is the second or third time that the right hon. Member has said that I have not read the Bill.

Dr. ADDISON: If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) they will find these words:
Where under the powers conferred by this section the Minister provides a small holding for any unemployed person, the Minister may, in accordance with regulations made by him with the approval of the Treasury"—

Sir D. HERBERT: I have read it.

Dr. ADDISON: In that case the hon. Member must have read it without comprehending what it means. It means that the Treasury will make regulations governing the advance of loans. Is it imagined that the Treasury or the Ministry will make regulations affecting advances to smallholders in such a way as to facilitate smallholders taking them to the next market and selling them to the first purchaser? I have never heard of such a thing. Consider what the smallholder has to do. He has to go through the network of tests of character, capability of training, and all the rest set out in the Clause, and the right hon. Member for Hendon—whether he derived his illustration from Siberia or elsewhere I am not clear—is under the impression that the smallholders will rush to sell their stock the next day without let or hindrance. It never seems to have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury and the Ministry in advancing these people money would act as people with elementary common sense.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is exactly what is happening with the loans you are giving to Russia at present.

Dr. ADDISON: It may be some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman to know
that these loans will not be given to Russia, but to British smallholders and, therefore, that particular ground of uneasiness is removed. If he thinks that the British smallholder is akin to the Russian he is mistaken in the British smallholder. [Interruption.] I prefer my own countrymen. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the proviso to Sub-section (2) he will see these words:
Provided that the Minister may, in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid, in lieu of making a loan to any person …. supply to that person any such stocks ….
That clearly means that the regulations we make will imply that when you make an advance of goods instead of cash they will take the place of a loan, and in either case this Amendment is of no use if you have the kind of person which the right hon. Gentleman seems to visualise. The Amendment, even if it were in the Bill, would not stop such a person. It would have no effect at all. It does not bear any relation to the transaction and, therefore, I say once more that it will serve no useful purpose.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The Minister ought to have had one of the Law Officers to reply to the Debate in view of such non-sense as that to which we have just listened. I use the word "nonsense" definitely because the right hon. Gentleman was so discourteous to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert). My hon. Friend, of course, has read the Bill and he has read it aright, and it is no use the Minister of Agriculture trying to mislead the House of Commons. The House may, if it pleases, do what I think is a foolish thing. The position is beyond dispute. Under the Bill the Minister is going to provide a house and smallholding for the unemployed man. In addition to that, in cases where it is necessary—as these men are unemployed it will be necessary in almost all cases—he is going to provide him with the stock, or he can make a loan to the smallholder for the purpose of buying the stock. In either case the smallholder is in a position to deal with the stock and he can sell it to anyone he pleases. Why on earth, in addition to doing all these things, should the State run the risk of the smallholder raising a loan on stock that really does
not belong to him and for which he is indebted to the State in full? Why should the State run the further risk of the smallholder being in a position to go to his banker and get a loan on the stock? As an ordinary matter of business the House ought not to agree with this proposal.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates the fact that the banks would be in a very delicate position. Does he think that in such circumstances the banks would advance the money?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I cannot say whether they would or not. [Laughter.] It is not a matter for laughter. If the bank made an advance under the Agricultural Credits Act it would get an actual security. Therefore in all probability the bank would make an advance in many cases. In addition to giving the smallholders, under this part of the Bill, these enormous advantages, providing them at the public expense with houses and smallholdings and finding them loans—during the Committee stage the Minister said that the total would average £275—and having provided them with weekly allowances of 30s. a week—no doubt there are many deserving cases—why should we in cases that are undeserving put a man in the position of being able to raise money without his having paid back a single penny of his loan from the State?

Mr. POTTS: You know that the banks want security, and that what you suggest cannot be done.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Under the Agricultural Credits Act the bank gets an absolute security in preference to anybody else. I disagree with the wording of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I think it is unworkable. The original Amendment is the one that ought to be accepted. For practical purposes it prevents a man raising a loan on these articles.

Mr. SKELTON: I would like to deal with the matter from the point of view of the smallholder. Everyone is agreed that the smallholder has to be extraordinarily careful, at all stages of his career, about his finance. Laxity in financial arrangements pulls him down more quickly than anything else. I agree
that if we set up this class of smallholder there must be assistance from the State, but in the interest of the smallholder himself he should not be given the opportunity of trying to raise a second loan on articles for which he has not paid. It really is a temptation which is not to be pooh-poohed by simply saying that most British people are honest. Of course, they are honest, but the difficulty is that when they get into a bit of financial trouble they might be tempted to raise a double loan upon their stock. One of my hon. Friends expressed doubt whether the Amendment in the original form would cover the whole ground of anxiety. I agree with the Minister that it is almost impossible to get a watertight Amendment.
Are the facts of the situation not these Since the Agricultural Credits Act of 1928 the only practicable and available source of ordinary credit is that Act. If you exclude the smallholder from raising a double loan under that Act you take away 99 per cent. of the temptation to raise loans upon stock which truly is not his. I am not tremendously concerned with making the Amendment 100 per cent. watertight. I should like to see it 99 per cent., or whatever percentage you like, watertight. It is of importance to the smallholder not to be given an opportunity of raising money upon stuff for which he has not paid. I am not tremendously impressed with the fact that there may be even £274,000 paid by the State in this respect, or with the possibility of some of that money being lost, but I am tremendously impressed with the necessity of preventing the smallholder from raising a double loan. I am sure there is a matter of substance here which well merits consideration by the Minister.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I have listened with great care to the speeches. I suggest, with all respect to hon. Members opposite, that there is no substantial disagreement raised by this matter. The Clause makes provision for a loan to these people, and that loan is to be carried out under regulations approved by the Treasury. The Minister says that the difficulties seen by hon. Members opposite will be taken into account when the regulations are framed by the Treasury. Is it credible that the Treasury would pass regulations which would allow a man to raise a charge on his stock before he
had paid for it? The matter can safely be left, as the Minister suggested, to be covered by the regulations of the Treasury.

Sir D. HERBERT: I would call the attention of the Minister to a matter which I think he has overlooked. He has suggested, and the last speaker said, that the State is protected here, because the loan will be made under regulations. The last speaker said that it was unthinkable that the regulations would not create a charge on these assets. In order to show the Minister that I have read the Bill, and read it probably with a little more care and a little more apprehension than he has himself, I call attention to Sub-section (3), where it is set out that the regulations made for the purpose of this Section shall prescribe certain things. But it does not say that the regulations shall prescribe that there shall be a charge. Indeed, there is at least an indication to the Treasury, if nothing more, that they are not to ask for a charge and are not to require a charge.

Mr. KNIGHT: The hon. Gentleman has had long experience of Treasury regulations, and I ask brim, is it credible that the Treasury would frame regulations that did not make such a provision?

Sir D. HERBERT: If the hon. and learned Member had waited one minute longer he would have heard me telling the Minister why I think it is not unthinkable that the Treasury would make regulations which did not create a charge. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman of a definite and very serious case in which the Treasury lent very large sums of money for certain purposes without taking a charge, and lost large sums of money. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the arrangements which were made in the early days of the War, under which the Government lent, through the Bank of England, enormous sums of money to holders of South American bills. They lent those sums of money to approved houses with the intention that the debt should be repaid out of the proceeds of those bills when the bills came to be collected. The Treasury did not take the precaution of putting into the memorandum which was signed by the borrowers, the few short words necessary to say that that money
should be a charge upon those bills. I myself acted in the case of a large firm of merchants who owed large sums of money to the Bank of England, advanced in this way, and the Bank of England did not even rank as preferential creditors. They had no charge whatever on the assets of those bills and they lost their money, and it would have been perfectly competent for that firm, if they had chosen to do so, to have raised money—if they could have done it—from other sources on the security of those bills against which money had been advanced by the Government.
This Clause, as it is drawn, negatives rather than otherwise the direction that the Treasury should by their regulations require or create a charge. The Treasury on previous occasions have lent money in this way without creating a charge, and there is no reason to suppose that they would not do it again. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of tinkering with these words, he should, in the next following Sub-section, which sets out that the regulations made for the purposes of this Clause shall prescribe certain things, include "prescribe that the advances shall be a charge upon these assets," or some words to that effect. If he did something of that kind, then we should have a direction to the Treasury to do what, in the Minister's opinion, it is unthinkable that they would not do, but what they actually have done in the past, and what they may well do again.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I am reluctant as a layman to intervene upon the legal points of this dispute at any length, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that the difficulty in which the Minister, admittedly, finds himself, and in which certainly most of the Members of the House find themselves, arises solely from the right hon. Gentleman's neglect to carry out meticulously the undertakings given to us upstairs. This is not the first time that it has occurred in connection with this Bill—

Dr. ADDISON: That is a direct personal charge and I resent it. It is not true. I would undertake to say that I gave no undertaking upstairs, to which I have not honestly endeavoured to give effect. I have been through the whole of the undertakings ipsissima verba and I have done my best to attend to every
one of them, and the suggestion that I have done otherwise is entirely baseless and untrue.

Major DAVIES: I accept, at once, of course, what the Minister has said—

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member should not make these charges.

Major DAVIES: I am entitled to point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Allow me, first, to read an extract from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee when this Amendment was moved in precisely the same words as those which appear on the Paper, by my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved it to-day. On that occasion, the Lord Advocate, speaking upon the Amendment, used these words:
We do not feel able to take the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed, but I have the authority of the Minister to say that we shall be very glad, in consultation with hon. Gentlemen opposite, to consider this point between now and Report, believing as we do that it raises a point of substance, with a view to some formula being devised to meet the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 9th December, 1930; col. 462.]
Those are the words in the OFFICIAL REPORT and our complaint is in reference to that undertaking, given by the Lord Advocate, himself a responsible Minister, and speaking in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, admitting that this was a point of substance and difficulty, and that he would take it up with us on this side of the House, in order to arrive at a formula. In these circumstances, if the Minister still says that I have misrepresented him, and that he did not undertake to meet us, I have nothing further to say. I must leave that matter to the decision of the House.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May we have a further reply from the Minister on this matter? This is a very definite pledge given in Committee.

Dr. ADDISON: I am trying to obtain the details as regards that pledge, because of course I cannot be expected

to remember every step in connection with all these matters. I had consultations with my legal advisers in regard to this particular subject, and it is in consequence of the advice given to me that I have taken the course which I have taken on this occasion. I think this is a matter upon which I have consulted hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "On this side?"] I am sure that hon. Members know that I have endeavoured to carry out the undertakings given upstairs, and as far as I know I have not failed to do anything which I undertook to do then, but I could not without notice give the names of the hon. Members consulted or answer as to the details of each particular case. What I do know is that I tried as far as I could to give effect to all the undertakings given.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I must say that, in the cases in which I was personally concerned, the Minister was extremely courteous to me, and wrote me very fully, and I would like to bear out what he has said in that respect. This is a very complicated question, however, and I do not think my hon. Friends here wish to press the Minister unduly. At the same time I think we ought to have some definite statement from the Minister that this matter will be dealt with in another place because it is a most important as well as a most complicated legal question. If the Minister cannot meet us in that way I think it is a matter which ought not to be left without a decision of the House now.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: As the Mover of the Amendment in the Committee stage, and as the Member who received the assurance of the Lord Advocate which has already been mentioned, may I say that I have been in no way consulted on this matter either by the Minister or by the Lord Advocate?

Question put, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment "

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 236.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Beaumont, M. W.


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armaqh)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Wilfrid W.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bird, Ernest Roy


Altor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Ba[...]niel, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.


Atholl, Duchess
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Buchan, John
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Butler, R. A.
Hanbury, C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colville, Major D. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Tinne, J. A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Todd, Capt. A. J,


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dixey, A. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dugdale, Capt. T. L,
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ferguson, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Ford, Sir P. J.
O'Connor, T. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Victor Warrender.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Chater, Daniel
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harbord, A.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hardie, George D.


Ammon, Charles George
Daggar, George
Harris, Percy A.


Angell, Sir Norman
Dallas, George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Arnott, John
Dalton, Hugh
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Aske, Sir Robert
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Haycock, A. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hayday, Arthur


Ayles, Walter
Day, Harry
Hayes, John Harvey


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dukes, C.
Harriotts, J.


Barr, James
Ede. James Chuter
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Batey, Joseph
Edmunds, J. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Rt. Hon Wedgwood
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hoffman, P. C.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Elmley, Viscount
Hopkin, Daniel


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Horrabin, J. F.


Benson, G.
Foot, Isaac
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Birkett, W. Norman
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Blindell, James
Freeman, Peter
Isaacs, George


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bowen, J. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Johnston, Thomas


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gill, T. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bromley, J.
Glassey, A. E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, W.
Gossting, A. G.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Granville, E.
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Knight, Holford


Buchanan, G.
Griffith, F. Klngsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Lang, Gordon


Burgess, F. G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lathan, G.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cape, Thomas
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lawrence, Susan


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)




Lawson, John James
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Leach, W.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Snell, Harry


Lees, J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Logan, David Gilbert
Palin, John Henry
Stamford, Thomas W.


Longbottom, A. W.
Paling, Wilfrid
Stephen, Campbell


Lengden, F.
Perry, S. F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Strauss, G. R.


Lunn, William
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Sutton, J. E.


McElwee, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


McEntee, V. L.
Potts, John S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McKinlay, A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


MacLaren, Andrew
Raynes, W. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Townend, A. E.


McShane, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Romeril, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Mansfield, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walker, J.


Marcus, M.
Rowson, Guy
Wallace, H. W.


Markham, S. F.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Watkins, F. C.


Marley, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marshall, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Matters, L. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
West, F. R.


Maxton, James
Scott, James
Westwood, Joseph


Melville, Sir James
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Milner, Major J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Morley, Ralph
Shield, George William
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simmons, C. J.
Wise, E. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)



Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Edwards.

Original Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

8.0 p.m.

Mr. HASLAM: I would like to say a word on the subject of the original Amendment. The Minister relies, in rejecting this Amendment, on the fact that the Treasury is certain to make all requisite regulations, but I would like to say that this reference to the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, is a very important matter in the mind of the smallholder, because it is under that Act that the smallholder raises loans and gets credit, and any smallholder in the position of requiring a loan would be advised by his friends to turn to that Act and see what he could do. Therefore, I would like to say a word in favour of those words being put in the Bill. The speeches on this side have shown that those who are supporting this Amendment are doing so as the friends of the smallholder, to protect him, when he is in difficulties, from turning where he would generally be expected to turn and, in so doing, landing himself in very grave difficulties. There
fore, I urge the Minister once more to consider this point of view and, if possible, to agree to this Amendment. What possible damage could its acceptance do to the Bill? How could it prejudice the Bill? It is impossible to conceive that the insertion of these words could do the Bill any harm whatever or could stand in the way of a single smallholder getting his holding. Therefore, why should the Minister not agree to these very simple words, accentuating this particular Act of Parliament?

Amendment negatived.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 11, line 26, to leave out the word "gradually," and to insert instead thereof the word "proportionally."
This Amendment is in regard to payments made in cases of allowances which are made to smallholders. It is provided in the Bill that the amount of an allowance is gradually reduced during the period in which the allowance is payable. It has been brought to my notice that the word "gradually," in relation with the
words "in proportion to the value of the benefit," might raise some administrative difficulties.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 28, leave out the words "in proportion," and insert instead thereof the words "having regard."—[Dr. Addison.]

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) that no grant, allowance, or loan shall be made under this section to any person who is in receipt of an allowance under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
I cannot believe that the Minister will have any objection to the principle of this Amendment. If he is going, under this Bill, to give an allowance to an unemployed man to work a smallholding, he will want to give such an allowance as is fit for the purpose, and from a mere accounting point of view he would not want the unemployed person to be drawing the dole and at the same time getting an allowance under this Bill. It seems to me that if an unemployed person were entitled to draw the dole from the Minister of Labour and to draw an allowance under this Bill, you would be opening the door for confusion, to say nothing of possible corruption. If a man is given an allowance in respect of a smallholding, he ought to be getting an allowance from no other State authority. Therefore, we hope very much that the Minister will see his way to accept either this Amendment or words to the same effect.
I am sure that if the idea gets abroad that a man can draw unemployment insurance benefit, or uncovenanted benefit and at the same time can get an allowance from the Minister of Agriculture under this Bill, you will not only be adding confusion to the accounts, but you will really be giving a stimulus to some people to subsist on a subsidised allotment of this sort for as long as they can, instead of seeking to pursue their normal trade. That would be a very unhealthy state of affairs. You have always to remember that these subsidised smallholders will be in a very difficult position when the subsidy comes to an end. The subsidy can only be for a limited period. A man has to learn to stand on his own feet at the end of that
period, and, therefore, we ought to be very strict as to the terms on which this assistance is given.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Noble Lord is perfectly correct in assuming that it is the intention of the Government to ensure, by means of the Treasury regulations, that the difficulty in the case which he put forward will be covered. In other cases, which are not covered by the actual form of words which he moves, drafted presumably for the purpose of getting an assurance from the Government, the exact form of words which he has put on the Paper might raise certain administrative difficulties—if, for example, we were barred from giving a grant for farm implements and stock to an unemployed man during perhaps the actual week in which he was still in receipt of unemployment benefit. But it is the intention of the Minister, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Clause, to ensure that the point raised by the Noble Lord shall be adequately covered, and I hope that, with that assurance, the Amendment will not be pressed.

Viscount WOLMER: This Amendment merely seeks to give directions to the Minister and the Treasury in regard to the regulations that they are to make, and we are using the same machinery that the Minister wants to use. We are merely giving the instructions, as it were, to the person who has to draw up the regulations. We are not trying to put them into the Act, and surely we want to have some words to make it clear that the regulations do provide for this point.

Colonel ASHLEY: It seems to me that this is really a very important point and that the Minister might well accept these words, or words which have the same meaning. If the Minister says that all these various points will be prescribed by the regulations, it is only logical that they should be set out here. It is already laid down that the regulations shall prescribe "(a) such scale of allowances" and so on, and "(b) the rate of interest payable on any loans" and so on. These are laid down by Parliament, and now my hon. Friend raises a point of importance which he wants Parliament to insert. I cannot see why, if the Minister agrees that he will do it and that it is an important point, he
cannot accept the Amendment as one of the things to be embodied in the regulations. If he refuses to put it in the Sub-section, we must think that there is some snag in the assurances which the Under-Secretary of State has given.

Mr. McKINLAY: The unemployed man needs protection under the regulations, because the moment he qualifies for a grant or a loan he ceases to be available for insurable employment and automatically ceases to be a charge on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The difficulty is that the unemployment insurance administration will know nothing about the administration of this Measure; it will not be their business, and the unemployed person is in danger of falling between two stools. The moment he becomes a smallholder he ceases to be available for insurable employment. He also automatically ceases to be entitled to transitional or any other benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Consequently, the Government should protect a man in the transitional period between his becoming an allotment holder and his ceasing to draw unemployment benefit. I do not want any person to draw twice from public funds, but I can see the difficulty here from my experience with unemployment insurance. The moment a man ceases to be available for employment, and even supposing a year elapses before he gets any return from his allotment, his benefit ceases and what happens to a man under this Bill is no business of the insurance administration.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In substance, what my hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) has said is our point of view. There is a difficulty in accepting precise words, because of the limitations and difficulties in administration which might result if those precise words were accepted. We would much prefer that the Treasury regulations should be laid down in the way that I have indicated, and I hope that the Noble Lord and his friends will see their way to accept the definite assurance that the Minister has authorised me to give.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to ask lave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
and
(c) that the loan shall be a charge upon such stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements as aforesaid.
We have already discussed this subject, and I would only remind the House and the hon. Gentleman in charge of what took place just now, when the Minister suggested that the regulations to be made by the Treasury in connection with these loans would naturally provide that the loans should be a charge upon the assets purchased with the money. I pointed out then that, as the Bill stands, it prescribes that the regulations shall contain certain things, but it does not prescribe what the Minister wants, namely, that the loans shall be a charge upon the assets. I therefore move this manuscript Amendment in order that the Minister's intention may be carried out.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Gentleman and his friends know that this point has been thrashed out for the last hour or more, and they are aware that there are legal difficulties and complexities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit. It is not an Amendment which a Government ought to accept in manuscript form without the legal officers being given every opportunity of considering its implications. We have had some recent experience in dealing with the Agricultural Credits Act, and we have to be exceptionally careful. The banking corporations in Scotland so far have not seen their way even to operate the Act of Parliament which both Houses have approved. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman and his friends will accept my assurance that the most careful consideration will be given to the form of words which he has handed in, and to the point which he has put, between now and the consideration of this Measure in another place. He will be communicated with so that he or his friends will lose nothing in the way of any political discussion which we may be called upon to have in the matter.

Sir D. HERBERT: After the courteous way in which the hon. Gentleman has met me, I would ask leave to withdraw the
Amendment, on the understanding that careful consideration will be given to an Amendment in this form with a view to an endeavour being made to insert it or words which carry out its effect in another place, subject of course to its being found that it would involve no unfortunate implications or entanglements. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to accept an Amendment of this kind at short notice as a manuscript Amendment. I would only repeat that after a long discussion we arrived I think at a method of meeting what is in the minds of both sides here, but, as I do not want to be dogmatic about it and say that I am perfectly certain that I am right and that this Amendment will do, I am, after the assurance I have received from the hon. Gentleman, quite prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not like there to be any dubiety about what I promised. It is better that it should be stated now. I am only promising that the whole matter, not only this form of words which the hon. and learned Gentleman has handed in but the whole subject matter of the discussion which has taken place during the past hour or more, will be very carefully considered by our legal advisers, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will be communicated with. I have not promised that any steps of one kind or another will be taken by the Minister or through the Minister in another place. I am only saying that the result of the examination of the whole situation will be communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman, so that he or his friends may then be in a position to take whatever steps they may think necessary or desirable as the result of that examination.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I think what the Under-Secretary has said is very reasonable, provided that it means reconsider with a view to preventing the persons for whom such things have been provided being put in a position to raise money on them to the detriment of the Government's security for the loan.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Obviously, all the discussion that has taken place will be considered in view of the statement the Minister has made, but I am promising
nothing further than that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself will be communicated with.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say he will withdraw his Amendment?

Sir D. HERBERT: Yes, to save time I will ask leave to withdraw, but I think the Under-Secretary might have gone a little further and have said that if he were satisfied that something of this kind could be done he would use his best endeavours in another place to that end; but I may almost assume that he will do so, and, under those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 7.—(Power of Minister to provide smallholdings with financial assistance for agricultural workers.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 2, to leave out the second word "an" and to insert instead thereof the words "a hired."
in moving this Amendment I wish to bring to the attention of the House another Amendment—in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
For the purposes of this section, the expression 'agricultural worker' shall include any person employed in agriculture, horticulture, or forestry.
Those who served on the Committee which considered this Bill will remember that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) made an eloquent speech on behalf of hired agricultural hands, those who are employed at wages and work on the land. I do not think it was noticed at the time that there does not exist a definition of an agricultural worker. There are a good many different definitions of "agriculture" scattered about in our Acts of Parliament. I want to make two things clear, first of all that this Clause is applied to somebody employed for wages, and secondly, that we should apply the term "agricultural" as it is most commonly used in connection with the Unemployment Insurance. Act, making agriculture include horticulture and forestry. I think it was the intention of the Committee that a man who, say, is partly engaged in ditching and partly engaged in such work as felling trees and partly
engaged in work like thatching and rick building should be regarded as an agricultural worker from the point of view of this Clause; but unless we put in some definition I am very doubtful whether that would be the case.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to Second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member would definitely be a limiting Amendment, and, as he himself says, the very attempt to define with meticulous care and accuracy what is an agricultural worker presents very grave difficulties. I am sure it is not the intention of the hon. and gallant Member or his Friends to do anything which would prevent the Minister at some future date from finding employment for someone who may be a deserving unemployed man in a, village because of some unnecessarily restrictive form of words in the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER: If he is unemployed this Clause would not come in.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That may be true, but even the word "unemployed" raises difficulties. The question of whether a man is an unemployed man raises questions of spare time and occasional employment. All sorts of troubles of that kind have arisen in the administration of the Employment Exchanges, as hon. Members are painfully aware, and it would be far better that the widest possible definition of agricultural workers should be left in the Bill, so that cases which may be deserving are not barred out. Phrases like "a rural agricultural worker" or "a hired agricultural worker," for example, automatically begin to bar out, perhaps, a man who has been a small market gardener; and I would point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) and his Friends are proposing another Amendment which is an attempt to widen the definition. I put it to the hon. and gallant Member that so far from making matters easier for the unemployed rural worker he may definitely make them worse; and in view of the tremendous difficulties existing already in defining what an agricultural worker is and what is an unemployed man I hope the hon.
and gallant Member will not press this Amendment.

Mr. ERNST BROWN: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw the Amendment. The House will learn with regret that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) has contracted a chill and is confined to her home to-day, because she would wish to be here to forward the case which she put so eloquently in Committee for the man who works on the land. In Committee we came to the conclusion that this was a question to be interpreted by common sense, and that the intention was quite plain that such facilities as were given to unemployed town workers should be given to the men in the villages who work on the land, so that they may have a chance to get some land. I hope there will be no attempt to interfere with the definition in the Clause. I believe that it will do the work it was meant to do, namely, to give the rural dweller an equal chance with the town dweller.

Mr. SCOTT: May I ask the Under-Secretary to take this opportunity of discussing one question as to which we have given him private notice, namely, whether the term "agricultural worker" will include those men whose normal or regular employment is that of agricultural workers but who at the time of application or at the date of the commencement of this Act may be employed temporarily in some other occupation? An agricultural worker may be working in an occupation which is not agricultural, and I want to know whether that man would be included in the category of agricultural worker.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If a man obtains employment of another kind in the way suggested, he does not, under this Bill, actually cease to be an agricultural worker.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SCOTT: I beg to move, in page 12, line 2, after the word "worker," to insert the words:
or for those persons whose names are on the lists of applicants kept by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by the county councils.
There is a class which does not seem to fall under either of the two classes
already provided for, namely, those who have lodged applications with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the county councils. Those applications include many ex-service men, some of whom have been waiting for their opportunity for many years, and their demand still remains unsatisfied. These are men who have borne the heat and burden of the day, and, if they find themselves excluded from the benefits of this Measure, they will very much resent it, more especially if they find that preference has been given to others less deserving than themselves. They are sure to feel some resentment if they are passed over in that way. There are many ex-service men who have not been able to avail themselves of these opportunities for want of capital, but now that the Bill promises financial assistance in the way of grants that disability will be removed. I mention ex-service men specially, because I think they should have preferential treatment. I would remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the Ministry of Agriculture has received no less than 6,000 applications, including 2,000 ex-service men. I hope the applications of those men will be considered in addition to the two categories provided for in this Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I point out that there are already on the list of the Department a, large number of men who have shown themselves competent to work smallholdings, and who have been on the list for a number of years. I am sure there would be some feeling of resentment among those men if they were debarred from the opportunities offered by this Bill by preference being given to unemployed men in other areas. We are advised that the overwhelming proportion of these men are adequately covered under the term "agricultural workers"; in fact, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of them are adequately covered by that term. I trust, with that explanation, that the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott) will be satisfied.

Mr. SCOTT: I thank the Under-Secretary for his courteous and sympathetic answer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:
For the purposes of this section the expression 'agricultural worker' shall be deemed to include any farmer who is obliged to quit his present holding by reason of adverse economic conditions affecting his occupation thereof.
I apologise for the fact that this is another manuscript. Amendment but some time ago I gave to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a copy of the Amendment, and also gave one to the Minister. While I entirely agree with this Amendment, I move it on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, who set a good deal of store by it. It will be within the recollection of the House that Clause 7 was not in the original Bill at all. If my recollection is correct, the substance of it was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who made an extremely able and appropriate speech upon it; and the sense of the Committee in favour of accepting it was so overwhelming that the Minister at once gave in and allowed the Clause to be inserted in the Bill. It simply says that an agricultural worker shall be able to have the advantage of the smallholdings movement just as if he were an unemployed worker in the town, on the ground, largely, that he is the very person of all others who is likely to make a smallholding pay.
The Minister, with, I think, a good deal of force, said that, while he had every sympathy with the Amendment, he was rather afraid that, if its provisions were taken advantage of by agricultural workers to any large extent, there might be a serious shortage of labour on the farms. If, as many hon. Members stated to be the case, the agricultural labourer was absolutely dying to have a smallholding—if the one ambition of his life was to have a smallholding, to cease to be a man working for a weekly wage, and to become a person who, if he had not land of his own, at any rate had a stake in the land—a very large number of these excellent people would quit work on the farms and go in for smallholdings. Indeed, I think someone said that it might even almost destroy the primary purpose of the Bill by swamping the applications of the unemployed in the big towns and urban areas, and that the Bill, instead
of being one for the relief of unemployment, which is really what it is, would become a Bill to enable agricultural workers to become smallholders. Personally, I think that that would be very desirable, because, if we are going to have smallholdings, for Heaven's sake let us have them worked by people who know something about them.
That statement, which, after all, is common sense, has greatly disturbed the tenant farmers of this country. They say that they are having the worst time that has ever been known in farming—worse than the eighties and early nineties—that they are at their wits' end to know what to do to make both ends meet, to pay their rates and taxes, and to get any profit at all on their capital, or, indeed, anything for their labour; and that now Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, offers bribes to their workers to quit working for them and take up some other form of employment. I am not criticising the proposal to give to the agricultural labourer that advantage, but am only trying to point out the view that is naturally taken by the tenant farmer and the freeholder working his own land.
He, therefore, says that, if his workers are going to be given the chance of a smallholding, then, in the name of justice and common sense he also should be given the chance of getting a smallholding if he is unable to work his farm in the absence of labour, and has either to go into the Bankruptcy Court or give up working at what he has been doing all his life; and he asks, if smallholdings are being provided for his agricultural labourers, and for the unemployed in the big towns, why should not the tenant farmer, who is in a bad position and cannot carry on his occupation, be allowed the opportunity of trying whether he cannot make one of these smallholdings a success? If it is right and proper that the agricultural labourer, as one who knows how to work the land, should be given that chance, surely the farmer, who has been the directing head of these agricultural labourers, who has had to scheme things out, and often to work very hard himself, should not be debarred from the chance of getting a smallholding if by the action of the State through this Bill he is put into a worse economic position than that in which he otherwise would be. The present Government at the last election said that they were
going to make farming pay. They said that they had some wonderful scheme, by a magic wand, directly they were elected, or within a few weeks, or at any rate a few months, to make farming pay—

Mr. McKINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman might quote the publication.

Colonel ASHLEY: No; I should probably be out of order, but I think I have not misrepresented hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government as a whole—

Mr. McKINLAY: You said "a magic wand."

Colonel ASHLEY: They did state that they had a well-considered agricultural policy, which incidentally would make farming pay, and also gain for them a large number of votes in the rural districts, which was probably, from their point of view, rather more important. Ministers of Agriculture come and Ministers of Agriculture go. One has been punished by being elevated to another place, and we have now the right hon. Gentleman who is at present sitting opposite me. I am sure that in his gigantic brain he has many schemes, but, unfortunately, he has never told us what those schemes are. We have been waiting for about 20 months to hear what the Government schemes are, and the position of the wretched farmers is exactly the same. From their point of view it is almost too late now for any scheme to make farming pay, and, therefore, we ask in all seriousness, since a large and expensive organisation is being set up for establishing smallholdings up and down the country, which are going to be given to the unemployed in the towns and to the agricultural labourers, how, with any sense of justice, can the same opportunity, if it be necessary, be denied to the tenant farmer—and, I was almost going to say, the landowner also, because, after all, he is having just as bad a time? I have not, however, widened the scope of my Amendment to that extent, because I always think it is best to go step by step. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will say, but I cannot visualise any arguments for refusing to the tenant farmer or the freeholder working his own land the same advantages with regard to smallholdings which the right hon. Gentleman supported almost with enthusiasm in Committee when he included the agricultural labourer.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure the whole House will have been thoroughly entertained, and also uplifted, by the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving this Amendment. He has, as it were, lifted the curtain for a few minutes. It is true that most of what he had to say had very little relation to the Amendment, but it was interesting for all that. I can quite see how the right hon. Gentleman is gravitating. He is gravitating to this side of the House. What he has in mind is a sort of five-year plan. He accused us of offering bribes to the workers. That related, I understood, to an Amendment, which is now part of this Clause, whereby an agricultural worker becomes entitled in the same way as an unemployed person to a smallholding. The right hon. Gentleman is now one of the chief bribers. The next thing will be that he will ask us to take into our arms the landowners as well. Then we shall have arrived at land nationalisation. Whether he means it or not I am not quite sure. However, it is very interesting and it shows how he is moving. Before long I hope he will be a colleague of mine on this side of the House. As to the particular Amendment, as far as the farmer who has had to quit his holding is concerned, he clearly is an agricultural worker and he would be entitled to come within the provisions of the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that a farmer who has been obliged to quit his holding because he cannot make it pay, or has gone bankrupt in working it, would be, under the provisions of the Bill, eligible for a smallholding?

Dr. ADDISON: That would depend on whoever made the selection of the applicants. I am not committing myself to a particular case, but certainly I should have thought he could be described as an agricultural worker.

Colonel ASHLEY: That is rather important. May I ask another question? An agricultural labourer, a Clause 7 man, is eligible for a smallholding if he is in work. If a farmer is really coming into the same category, a farmer who is in occupation of his farm but does not want to carry it on because he is losing so much money, would he also, therefore, be eligible as an agricultural worker?

9.0 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: He might, but the question whether the committee would select him as a suitable man is another matter. He is certainly an agricultural worker and, if he lost his holding, I supposed he would be unemployed, in which case he would be entitled. Under the terms of this Amendment those who had to make the selection would be required to convince themselves that this man had been obliged to quit his present holding by reason of adverse economic conditions, not that he had done it voluntarily but that he had been obliged. If he had not been obliged, he would not be eligible. If you put nothing in at all, clearly he is eligible. If you put this in, the only men who will be eligible are those who are able to prove to the satisfaction of someone that they have been obliged to quit their holding. There is another hurdle to get over. He also has to prove to the satisfaction of the committee that he was obliged by adverse economic conditions and not for any other reason—not affecting farming generally, but affecting the occupation of this particular holding. He has to prove all that before the committee before he becomes eligible. The right hon. Gentleman is going out of his way to make trouble for the man. He is going to make it almost impossible for him to prove his case. You are not helping the man by the Amendment. You are imposing at least three almost unscaleable hurdles in his way before he can convince the committee that he is a suitable applicant because, unless he passes all these three tests, however worthy a person he may be, he cannot become eligible. I trust that the right hon. gentleman, having encouraged us by his enunciation of sound Socialist principles, will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I appreciate that the Minister does not quite like the end of the Amendment, about adverse economic conditions, but the point is whether his interpretation of "agricultural worker" is right or not. We have not had a legal opinion. Many of these small farmers are far worse off than agricultural labourers, and they would be far more qualified for a holding that 90 per cent. of the unemployed who would appear before the committee.
There is no question about a man having been obliged to give up his holding. You can always find out his financial position from his banker. Anyone who takes on a tenant gets a banker's reference, and there is nothing in that part of it at all. If this is going to do what the Bill says it is, you will want the best class of candidates you can get, and this man would certainly make good in nine cases out of ten. He is the very class of man that you want, and you ought to encourage and not discourage him. An hon. Member laughed when I said many farmers are no better off than agricultural labourers. Professor Orwin has been into this matter of smallholders here, in Germany, and elsewhere. In Germany a small farmer has to work very hard if he is to make a decent living. The investigation recently held into these matters, on Professor Orwin's own showing, in a report which he presented to the Royal Agricultural Society of England, proved it is very much the reverse. He says:
In Germany, a novel form of investigation of the economics of smallholdings was reported upon in 1929. The inquiry was made in Würtemburg, and the investigators each lived on a farm for a year, as a member of the household, in a district where 98 per cent. of the farmers are small peasant proprietors. In most cases the farmer was found to earn less than his own paid labourer, and in all cases less than the wage of an ordinary industrial worker. To secure this reward the average farmer and his wife both worked at the rate of just over 10 hours a day, including Sundays.
In Switzerland, which is also a country of smallholdings, the official records show that for many years (excepting the War years) the typical farmer has been earning no more than is paid to an ordinary domestic servant.
I think that that answers the sneer about farmers who are not earning as much as labourers. It may not be true in this country, but upon investigation abroad there is certainly a great deal in it. And those who know farmers know that it is true of a great many of our small farmers at the present moment. If it be so, there can be no justification, if you are going to help the better utilisation of agricultural land in England, for not letting these small, skilled men have the same facilities for smallholdings as the unemployed and the agricultural labourer. It is merely a matter of justice. I do not think that it would mean a very great
deal. If the wording of the Amendment does not suit, I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not mind altering it to fulfil what the Minister desires. If we can get a guarantee from the Minister that a small farmer is entitled to come under the definition of "agricultural labourer," it will go a long way towards meeting our case.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I was very interested indeed to understand a moment ago that a. farmer could, in the opinion of the Minister, be considered an agricultural worker. I had no great hopes for any help for the farmer, but now I understand that, in the opinion of the Minister, he is an agricultural worker, I may, with some prospect of success, look to the party opposite for help for the farmer. I appealed last night for some sympathy for the farmer. To-night I am pleased to hear from the Minister that at last, under this Bill, something is to be given to him, and he is to be permitted to become a smallholder, or a farmer on land that has compulsorily been taken away from him for small farms or large-scale occupation. I suggest to the House that to the ordinary farmer there are now two occupations in front of him. Either he is going to become a smallholders or have an opportunity of becoming a director of a large-scale occupation. I am somewhat concerned in which of these positions I shall be classed. I desire to express my satisfaction that, at any rate, under this Bill a farmer is to get such little assistance that, in the opinion of the Minister, he may become a smallholder.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: I was sorry that the Minister at the beginning of his speech seemed rather to regard the Amendment as a joke, but I am glad that when he began to consider the terms of the Amendment, he seemed inclined to be sympathetic towards the people whom the Amendment was designed to help. I should like to point out the great disadvantage from which we suffer through having no Law Officer of the Crown present to advise us. The Minister used such terms as "I dare-say he might," "I should think that he would," and "I should imagine he would," but there was nothing definite. It was all supposition. I think that he was right, however, in saying that part of the wording of the Amendment was
not as good as it might be. I should like to ask him to give the matter very serious consideration with a view to seeing whether it is necessary to have further words put in to ensure that these men are eligible under the scheme for smallholdings. He agrees, I think, that they ought to be eligible, but is he certain that they are? It is all "I daresay," or "They may." I would ask him seriously to consider, before the Bill goes to another place, whether it is necessary to put in suitable words to ensure their eligibility.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: It seems to me that the Amendment tends to raise barriers against the farmer having the opportunity which the present Bill provides should he desire to take a small holding. I think that the tendency on the other side to play off the agricultural labourer against the farmer is a policy which is neither helpful to the industry nor to the passage of this Bill. Obviously, the intention in the Bill is to provide a holding for any agricultural worker. The average farmer has in these days certainly to work as hard as the average workman and, if he is not doing so, he is up against a fence which is even stiffer than the one which our friends on the other side are raising in order to prevent him from having a smallholding. I feel, as far as the approach to this Bill is concerned, that if hon. Members opposite would endeavour to remove hurdles and difficulties rather than to raise them, we should not only get the Bill through on broader lines, but we should also get a better understanding between the industry and this House in regard to the general attitude which is now being taken towards the industry. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to realise that those of us who are engaged in the industry know full well, be he farm worker or farmer, that we are struggling for a bare bone, and to intensify our difficulties at the present time is neither helpful to the House nor to the country.

Colonel ASHLEY: Although I moved the Amendment on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, the statement of the Minister has put a different complexion upon the situation from what I thought it to be. If, as I understand, the
Minister—without binding him because he has not his legal officers here—is of opinion that "agricultural worker" covers the point, then I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment, because I have got absolutely everything I desire.

Dr. ADDISON: Before the Amendment is actually withdrawn, I should like to say that I have sought advice, and I am advised that the expression "agricultural worker" means a person who works in agriculture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of Minister to dispose of or utilise land not required for unemployed persons or demonstration holdings.)

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 12, line 29, to leave out the word "purchase," and to insert instead thereof the word "acquire."
The Amendment has been put down in order to ensure the use of a word which would cover the holding of land by a county council where it was not actually purchased, but acquired by lease. Therefore, in order to cover the position, I am advised that the word "acquire" should be substituted for the word "purchase."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will it be possible, under this Amendment, for the State to acquire land, say, in lieu of Death Duties, and to pass it on to the county council, and so avoid direct payment? I do not raise this matter in any controversial spirit, but it seems to me that something of that kind might possibly arise.

Dr. ADDISON: It is possible to transfer land or to acquire land in lieu of Estate Duty, but that is dealt with under a special Statute relating thereto. There are Statutes which relate to the acquisition of land which may be offered to the State in lieu of Estate Duty. The Crown Lands Commissioners, of which I am one, a short time ago acquired an estate in lieu of Death Duties. It would be open to the Ministry, I suppose, but not as such, to acquire, if it wished to do so, land which had been offered in that way, and as far as its tenure is concerned it would then become the freeholder of the land, and it could lease the land to a county council.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 12, line 30, after the word "thereon," to insert the words:
in accordance with the provisions of the Smallholdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1926, fur the provision of small holdings.
I formally move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel RugglesBrise), in whose names it stands. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, because I believe it would be in the best interests of the Bill and of the country.

Mr. HASLAM: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member is aware that, in accordance with an arrangement that has been arrived at, there is a new Clause on the Order Paper to give effect to the powers of transfer, where there has been agreement between the Ministry and the council. I have put down the new Clause, and I understand that under Mr. Speaker's Ruling it is necessary to re-commit the Bill in respect of that Clause, which will cover the point raised in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the satisfactory explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power of Minister to act in default of county councils who have not provided sufficient smallholdings.)

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 13, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The person appointed to hold a local inquiry for the purpose of this section shall be a person to be agreed upon between the Minister and the county council or, in default of such agreement, a barrister of not less than ten years' standing to be nominated by the president of the Law Society, and, in relation to the inquiry, the person so appointed shall be deemed for the purposes of Section fifty-seven of the Smallholdings and Allotments Act, 1908, to be an officer of the Ministry.
This Amendment arises out of a discussion which we had in Committee. It was felt that in regard to the holding of a local inquiry as between the Ministry and the county council the per-
son holding such inquiry should not be an officer of the Ministry, otherwise the Ministry would be judge in its own case, which might be regarded as not fair to the county council. That was a fair criticism, and it was agreed that such inquiry should not be conducted, as most inquiries are conducted, by an officer of the Ministry but by someone who would be regarded by the county council and the Ministry as an impartial and independent person. I am advised that a suitable person to hold such an inquiry would be a barrister of not less than 10 years' standing, to be nominated by the president of the Law Society. This is not a technical agricultural question, but purely a question as to whether the council has or has not satisfied the applicant. It is purely a question for a legally trained person to inquire into. It is a land question, a surveyor's question and one which a person trained in legal matters and in weighing evidence can deal with.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: From the correspondence which I hold in my hand I think I may say I had some connection with this matter in the Committee stage. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he has met us. I will not be too critical of the Amendment, except to say that I am sorry he has had to submit to the lawyers once again, but, none the less, I thank him for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Application of Smallholdings and Allotment Acts to powers of Minister.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that if the Minister proposes to acquire any land under this section in respect of which, if the acquisition were made under the Smallholdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1926, an order or confirmation by the Minister would be required, and if any objection, other than an objection as to cost, is made to the compulsory acquisition of such land, and such objection is not withdrawn, the Minister shall refer such objection to the arbitration of an arbitrator agreed upon by the Minister and the owner of the land concerned, or, in the event of disagreement between the Minister and the owner by the president of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, and if the award of the arbitrator or the said president is in favour of such owner the Minister shall not make such compulsory acquisition.
Under the existing law, the Small Holdings Act, 1908, if a county council proposes to acquire land compulsorily and persons object for any other cause than cost, there is an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and a legal inquiry has to he held. The objections of the person whose land is to be acquired are taken, the reason for the county council desiring to acquire the particular land is given, and on that information the Minister comes to a decision and either confirms the Order or does not. Under Clause 11, the powers that are at present given to the county councils for taking land compulsorily for smallholdings are going to be vested in the Minister, and therefore it is quite obvious that there is no appeal from the Minister to the Minister. You will not even have an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober, and it makes the thing rather difficult. I raised this on the Committee stage and moved an Amendment in a rather different form. On that occasion the Minister agreed that it was somewhat anomalous that where compulsory powers were exercised by him, acting as though he were a county council, there would be no appeal against his own decision.
I have tried to meet that by drafting this Amendment in a different form, and trying to arrange that, in the event of objection being made to taking land compulsorily, unless the objection relates solely to cost, in which case it is dealt with by arbitration, there should be an appeal to the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution as arbitrator, and the arbitrators award shall be final. It is not extraordinarily easy to draft any very satisfactory Amendment, but I feel certain the House will realise that where the Minister takes compulsorily powers, which by previous Statute have been granted to another body, and under which Statute he was appointed the final judge, it is very undesirable that possibly he would be both jury and judge in his own case.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: On many an occasion the hon. and gallant Gentleman discovers a number of important points, and this is no exception to the rule. The case before us, I quite admit, does present a
difficult position. I do not think it is in any way possible to accept as a tribunal the proposal set up in the Amendment. The fact is, of course, that the county councils and other bodies in the last 32 years have had these powers, subject to confirmation of the orders by the Minister, and it has gone on very smoothly and regularly. Local inquiries are held when an order is applied for, under the existing procedure, by an officer or special person appointed by the Ministry. Since 1908, there have been 337 compulsory orders, and out of them 116 were not proceeded with, simply because of the mere fact that an order having been made led to agreement with the owner, which is the real reason behind these powers in almost every case. Take the particular case in point. In the case of a compulsory order being applied for, it is advertised in the newspapers and notice is given under the regulation for a calendar month within which objection can be lodged. Finally, if it is compulsory acquisition, the case is dealt with by an arbitrator—though it might be the Minister under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. He would assess the compensation in accordance with the provision of the Act, and the Minister would have no power to alter it.
In any case, there would have to be a local inquiry if it was proceeded with, so that there is abundant opportunity for a period of investigation, and, in the last resort, if a compulsory order is made, the assessment of compensation is made in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and the Minister has no say in the matter. Nevertheless, although it has worked quite smoothly and I have no doubt will continue so to work, it is open, I agree, to the technical objection which the hon. Member raises, that to some extent, as far as the power to make an order is concerned, the Minister is judge of his own case, but I am sure that the appointment of an outside arbitrator between a Government Department and private persons by the arrangement proposed in the Amendment would not form an appropriate type of tribunal. I recognise the difficulty and have not yet, quite frankly, seen a way to meet it. I am sure that this Amendment would not meet it, and that this form of tribunal would not be satisfactory, but I will continue to explore the matter,
and try to find some means of dealing with it, though I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I hope very much the Minister will find a way out of this difficulty, because such difficulties as have arisen in the past in regard to the acquisition of land for the, provision of smallholdings have arisen on the question of the compulsory acquisition of land. There is nothing that is more apt to raise hostility than a miscarriage of justice in regard to the acquisition of land. The Minister in this case admits quite frankly and fairly that he will be judge and jury in his own ease. That establishes a new principle. I do not know any other public service in which the Department concerned is both judge and jury. In the case of the Electricity Commissioners, public inquiries have to be held. They are not held by the Electricity Commissioners. The decision is given by an independent person appointed by the Ministry of Transport. I see possible disadvantages in calling in an outside body such as the Surveyors' Institution where a public Department is concerned, but there should be some way, perhaps by a reference to some other Department of State which might give a decision in matters of this kind. I hope that the Minister will look further into the matter, with a view to finding a way out of the difficulty.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to reconsider this matter. He said that he did not think the Surveyors' Institution was the proper tribunal to which to refer this matter. May I point out that in the Bill he has already referred somewhat similar matters to this tribunal, and if he does it in one case, why can he not do it in another?

Dr. ADDISON: In the one case it is a technical matter appertaining to the work of surveyors. This is quite a different matter, relating to the issue of a compulsory order. I will give the undertaking to look into the matter further.

Captain BOURNE: Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, there is one point upon which I should like to be
quite clear. I understand that in every case where an objection is made to a compulsory Order under this Clause, except in the case where the sole dispute is on a matter of price, there will have to be a local inquiry, as would be the case if it had been an order made by the county council. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will answer that point, as it is a matter of some importance.

Dr. ADDISON: The same procedure will apply as if it were an order made by a county council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power to arrange for management by county councils of smallholdings provided by Minister.)

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment is in order to pave the way for the new Clause which appears on the Order Paper, in connection with which I shall have to move to recommit the Bill. It is a new Clause relating to the transfer of smallholdings and allotments by the Minister to the county councils, and it is, therefore, better to leave this Clause out altogether and embody the provisions in a new Clause, in addition to the transfer of other lands as may be required.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power of Minister to provide allotments not exceeding one acre for unemployed persons.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, after the word "provide," to insert the words "at such rents as may seem to him reasonable."
This is the first of a series of Clauses put into this Bill with a view to providing allotments for those who are out of employment. Those who served on the Committee will remember that these Clauses were taken rather quickly because the Minister of Agriculture desired to get a Supplementary Estimate through before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, and, in consequence, several of these Clauses were taken out of their proper place in the Bill. We in Committee sympathised with the desire of the Minister to get these Clauses through in order to obtain his Supplementary Estimate, and there are certain points
in them to which we did not give, perhaps, quite that consideration in Committee which we otherwise should have done. No one on this side of the House has any anxiety or reason to object to the provision of allotments for those who are out of work. Many people, of whom I am one, have done their best to try to improve the allotment movement. We have been interested. We fully realise how much better it is for men to be interested in the land and to work on the land than it is to be unemployed and loafing about doing nothing.
I confess that when the Minister first introduced these Clauses, I was under the impression that the scheme was to provide allotments for the unemployed rent free for a period, and it seemed to me that that might create a considerable amount of difficulty locally. Since I have been rather more carefully into the scheme I am led to the conclusion that it is the intention of the Minister to charge a rent for these allotments, and that he required his special financial powers not with regard to the rent to be paid for these allotments but for the acquisition of the land. I have no desire by this Amendment to put any obligation on the Minister to charge any rent over and above that normally paid. I quite realise that in the vicinity of many of our great cities it is difficult either for the Minister or the local authority to acquire land suitable for allotments at a price which bears any real relation to what the men can pay for their allotments. As I understand this Clause—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the machinery is intended to enable the Minister to make up the deficiency between what might reasonably be expected from the allotment holder and the necessary cost of acquiring the land on which these allotments will be made.
I have put down this Amendment for the purpose of ascertaining exactly the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman rather than with any desire to tie his hands. I realise that what may be reasonable allotments in one town may not be reasonable allotments in another; you must take into consideration the circumstances in each locality. But if the Minister is going to charge rent—and this is the point—I think he must
obviously charge a reasonable rent. I should like to put this further point. The understanding was that a man could have an allotment under this scheme and not lose it merely because he ceases to be unemployed. The thing which has always struck me in relation to this scheme is that in the same city, perhaps in the same allotment society, or at any rate in an adjacent allotment society, you will have people coming in under this scheme to some extent privileged, though less privileged than is generally imagined, and against them, next door, you will have a man who has joined an allotment society and has provided his own seeds, and who pays rent at the rate fixed by the society. I believe that you may get a considerable amount of friction if you have these two systems working alongside each other. If, on the contrary, the Minister charged a reasonable rent, a great deal of the friction would be removed. I move the Amendment largely in order to elucidate the intentions of the Minister.

Dr. ADDISON: I am indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing up this point, because it does enable me to make a statement. The power to make advances to help local authorities, was provided in order to assist in the acquisition of land; and with regard to the provision of seeds and fertilisers in order to facilitate such provision, and frankly to recognise that they would have to be provided on special terms. With regard to rent, however, the conduct of these allotments is governed by the law relating to allotments. Under the Allotments Act of 1922 it is provided that land let for allotments shall be let at the full fair rent for such use. Those are the words, and they are words which have become habituated by use. The hon. and gallant Member will see that it would be unsafe to do away with those words and to substitute others. There will be no distinction as between the different holders on any particular site in respect of rent.

Captain BOURNE: In view of that statement, I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Sub-section raises a question on which we had considerable discussion in Committee. The Sub-section provides that the powers conferred on the Minister by the foregoing Sub-section shall include power to provide allotment gardens for persons who are not in full-time employment, as well as for those who are wholly unemployed. To my mind the difficulty under this Clause is that there is no definition of the meaning of the word "unemployed." My object in leaving out the Sub-section is to deal with the case of the systematic short-time man. I can quote an experience from my own constituency. There, there are many people who work in the motor car industry and are on systematic short time. But if you take their wages, together with the unemployment benefit to which they are entitled, they are considerably better paid than a large number of people who are on whole-time employment. Here is one of the things which I fear in the working of this system. If you have men working alongside each other on allotments, one of whom, because he is on systematic short time, is entitled to the benefits that the Government propose, and the other earning lower wages but in regular employment, having to go through the ordinary procedure and having to supply himself with everything, it is going to lead to friction and ill feeling. I am anxious to avoid any friction of that sort in the allotment societies.
If this Sub-section were omitted it would be open to the Minister to decide what people on short-time work or partially unemployed really fell within the ambit of his scheme. I have not the slightest desire to deprive of the benefit of the scheme those people who get only very occasional work and are very ill paid. If this Sub-section remains in the Clause it will be giving a statutory claim to people who are on systematic short time and are in receipt of very much better pay than their neighbours. If I am right in that assumption, I cannot see how the Clause can be made to work smoothly. Allotment work is very largely a matter for local societies, and if the local societies are to function efficiently it is absolutely necessary to have the feeling that one man is not treated better than another. I would like to see the Minister's hands left free rather than tied by this Sub-section.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose to add anything to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said so feelingly about the effect of a power of this sort upon the allotment associations, but I do desire to add a word or two about the way in which this Sub-section has been drafted. There is no definition at all of people who are not in full-time employment. Perhaps the House will permit me to give an illustration of the sort of thing that has come within my own professional experience in the last few months. It was the case of certain people employed in one of the workshops of a big railway company. They had been in what was described as part-time employment for a number of months. The position was that the actual employment was for five full days a week, whereas full-time employment was five and a-half days a week. As I read this Clause such a man, working at good wages for five days a week, would be entitled to come to the Minister under this Sub-section and ask that the powers of the Clause might be exercised in his favour. That is really not what the Minister intended. I ask him to consider whether he is not better off without the Sub-section, or whether, if the Sub-section is to continue, there should not be some definition which will enable the class of case to which I have referred not to be covered by the powers of the Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I confess that I waited with interest to hear the reasons and arguments which induced the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move this Amendment, because it seems to us highly desirable that the particular class of people whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends appear to wish to keep out of the terms of this Measure, should be brought into it. On social grounds, it appears to us desirable that people who are on short time should be given every possible facility for using their spare time wisely and to some advantage, rather than that a barrier should be placed in the way of the Minister considering the claims of short-time or spare-time workers in connection with these allotments. When it is remembered that these spare-time or short-time workers will pay the full rent for such allotments as they receive, there
would not appear to be any public disadvantage whatever in leaving the Minister the widest possible power of selection. The very definition of which the hon. and gallant Member spoke is precisely the sort of thing which would land the Minister into very serious trouble if he were to accept it. Who is to define when a man is a spare-time worker and when he is fully employed? There are all sorts of occupations in which any attempt to define whether or not a man is on full-time employment would land the Minister into difficulties. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends do not desire to crab or hamper the Minister in securing the widest possible area of choice for the beneficiaries under this Clause, and I trust that they will see their way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point of the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend, as I understand, does not wish to exclude part-time workers in country districts, or part-time workers in certain other cases but there is the definite fact, which has to be remembered in dealing with these matters that we are largely subsidising this form of allotments. I am aware that there are many ways in which the State is wasting money, to a very much larger extent than in this way, and I am entirely in favour of allotments, but I think that where a man is earning comparatively good wages we ought to have the most careful regulation of this matter in the interests of the taxpayer. The Under-Secretary said quite rightly that we do not want to hamper the administration of these allotments by too many rules and regulations. For instance if a man who is out of work gets an allotment and then obtains employment, obviously you are not going to put him out of the allotment. In the administration of these matters, however, the House of Commons has a right to insist that if a man can afford to pay the full rent, in the first instance, then the full rent should be paid. The 10.0 p.m. Under-Secretary has said that the full rent will be paid, but there is the further provision as to the supply of seeds and other materials and I think that where a man is employed for a considerable part of
his time, and is doing comparatively well, as may be the case near some of these large works which have been mentioned, he ought to make his full contribution for what he is getting. That, however, is a different point from the point raised by the Mover. There is also the question of the agricultural labourer and the casual labourer in the country district and, there, I think, we ought to give as much help as we can. The Minister ought to be able to give some assurance, however, that there will be no abuse in these matters. I do not mean that there is likely to be any abuse but there ought to be some safeguard for the taxpayer.

Sir J. LAMB: I quite appreciate the difficulty which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has pointed out in regard to this Sub-section, but at the same time I hope that the Minister will not delete it. I should be sorry to do anything in this House which was going to discourage the taking of allotments by these workers, whether they are in employment or not, provided that they have the time to cultivate the allotments properly. If you give an unemployed man an allotment of which he makes use for some considerable time as an unemployed man, you are not going to take it from him simply because he gets employment—always provided that he continues to cultivate it properly. That man may be in a better position than the man on part-time. For those reasons I think it better to err on the side of giving greater facilities than to run any risk of unduly limiting the powers conferred in connection with this matter.

Sir D. NEWTON: We do not desire to be obstructive in any way in connection with this Amendment but it appears to many of us that the smooth working of this proposal turns on the way in which the regulations referred to in Clause 16 are framed. We understand that those persons who are to receive the benefit of these allotments, will pay the ordinary standard rent but under Clause 16 they may receive grants and advances for seeds, fertilisers and equipment and the regulations governing the provision of these advances are to be made by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury. It appears to us that the economic and proper working of this
Clause will depend very much upon those regulations and if the Minister can give us an assurance that he will consider the matter from that point of view, I think there will be no desire to press this Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: Most of the speeches on this Amendment have been made by hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies, but the Amendment very profoundly affects industrial constituencies also. In my own constituency there are large numbers of people who would be very glad to take advantage of this Clause. There is a number of allotment societies which are doing their utmost to extend their activities, and I believe that a power such as this which is given to the Minister to include people on part-time employment, as well as those out of work altogether, would be very widely welcomed and utilised. I hope, from the point of view of the great industrial cities, where there is a good deal of part-time employment, the Minister will insist on retaining these powers, and I feel sure that he will have every opportunity of making use of them if the need should arise later on.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 16.—(Power of Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons.)

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) As respects any expenditure defrayed for the purposes mentioned in this section before the date of the commencement of this Act out of moneys provided by Parliament and paid into the smallholdings account before that date, this section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the seventeenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty.
The House will remember that with the concurrence of the Committee upstairs and of the House here, a special case was made to allow us to have a, Vote which would enable us to provide for allotment holders, to get along with work which it was agreed must be done within a certain time owing to the weather. It was agreed that when this Bill came into the House, words should be inserted in it for the regularising of that action, and these are the words which require to be
inserted. It is no additional cost, but merely brings the expenditure in respect of these allotments into line with the general provisions of the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not wish to oppose this Amendment at all, but simply to get some information from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. It is a rather unusual Sub-section. It amounts to this, that the right hon. Gentleman has spent certain sums of money without the necessary Parliamentary authority. He had the authority of the Estimates, but not the authority of this Bill. We quite sympathise with the desire of the Minister to get on with the work, and I do not wish to criticise unduly what he has done, but I think he owes it to the House just to tell us what he has done in this respect, approximately what sums he has spent, and exactly what the actions are that the Sub-section is intended to cover. I think it would be courteous on his part if he would let the House know what it is that he is asking us to validate and approximately how much money has been spent by him in this respect.

Sir D. HERBERT: I should like to re-enforce the request of the Noble Lord for further information, and I think the House should take notice of what is being done here. We had a considerable discussion on this very extraordinary attitude taken up by the Government when they asked for this expenditure to be sanctioned by a Vote without any Bill being before Parliament to authorise the expenditure. After adopting that very unusual course, which they admitted was unusual, after adopting the remarkable course of getting expenditure sanctioned by a Vote in Committee without any Bill before Parliament, they then introduced a Bill and got it through Committee before they had any part of that Bill authorising that particular expenditure. It seems to me a very sad reflection that in these days of financial stringency the Government of this country should be so careless in regard to expenditure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members opposite will listen, I was saying that having resorted to what they themselves said was a most unusual expedient, which ought not to be adopted except in emergency, an expedient which they then said would require to be sanctioned in a Bill
which they would introduce, they then forget all about the thing, and overlook it, and bring before Parliament and pass through Committee a Bill which leaves out the authority which they require, and they have to put it in on the Report stage. I have no more to say about it than that, but I hope that those people in the country who are interested, as they ought to be, in these financial matters at the present time, will notice this as another case of the extraordinary carelessness in all matters of expenditure and Parliamentary control over expenditure on the part of the present Government.

Captain BOURNE: I do not wish to oppose this new Sub-section, but I desire to protest against it, because I fear that it may be made into a precedent. I wish to protest against the action taken by the Government in incurring expenditure by a Supplementary Estimate without first having brought in a Bill authorising it and without having got the sanction of an Act of Parliament for that expenditure. It is a thoroughly bad constitutional practice. Our usual practice is that when a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the Government will obtain the money from the House of Commons, but so long as there is an uncertainty as to whether the Bill ever will reach the Statute Book, no financial commitments should be undertaken in regard to it. In this case there was, I admit, an emergency, and we are prepared, because of the emergency, to pass it over on this occasion, but unless a protest is made, I feel certain that future Governments will merely drag this in as a precedent for departing further and further from our constitutional procedure.

Dr. ADDISON: I do not object to the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) raising a protest against this exception to our normal procedure, though I cannot accept by any means all that he said in regard to it. It was well understood. It was not due to any carelessness or sloppiness on the part of the Government that the grant was required, and raised, with the full consent of all parties, before Christmas. It was due to the weather and the time of year, and unless we had been able to get authority to get started with the work, we should have run the risk of a great deal of delay.
It was not because I was careless, but because of the weather, and if the hon. Member had been here, he must have known it quite well.

Sir D. HERBERT: Was it the weather that prevented the right hon. Gentleman from putting this Clause in the Bill before it went to the Committee?

Dr. ADDISON: The Clause was in the Bill all right, and the Committee very kindly—and I express my thanks to all parties—facilitated its passage before it would normally have been reached in order to enable us to get that Vote. It was there all right, but the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I wonder if the Minister has looked at the picture which is in the gallery where the public come in. There he will see Cromwell, in the name of the King, demanding money from Parliament—[Interruption.]

Mr. E. BROWN: You mean Wolsey.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: We have a modern instance here—the Minister of Agriculture, at the head of his officials, demanding money from Parliament. In the instance depicted in the picture, the Speaker refused to give way to the command of the King until the question of giving money had been discussed and passed. The present case is a modern illustration of the power of the bureaucracy. Here is Parliament apparently helpless, and we want to make a stand against the modern bureaucracy. What is the position of the Minister if we do not pass this? I should imagine that if some common informer took proceedings, he might even get the right hon. Gentleman's head chopped off. While we are dealing with this in a lighter vein than it deserves, Parliament and the country should realise how much power is getting into the hands of the bureaucracy of this country. Before the War it would have been impossible for Ministers to begin spending money until the Bill authorising it had been passed by Parliament. Now they spend many thousands of pounds voted to them, and trust to slipping through a Sub-section of this kind. I protest against it, although this may be a small matter, this procedure under a Socialist Government can easily grow. I think there is great danger in it, and perhaps on some future occasion we shall
look back to the warning given now. If anybody wishes to oppose this proposal, I shall be very glad to join in doing so.

Dr. ADDISON: I rise for a moment to reply to the request that was put to me by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), which I in advertently overlooked at the time. I must submit myself to the chastisement of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), with which I have no time to deal now. As I have not had notice of the Noble Lord's question, I am afraid I have not got the precise details for which he asked, but I will arrange to collect them so as to be able to make a statement on the Third Reading.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not feel inclined to let the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) get away with the extraordinary speech he has just made as lightly as the Minister has done. The parallel he used was extraordinarily badly chosen, because while I will not discuss for the moment what happened to Cardinal Wolsey when he demanded the money, the sad thing about Sir Thomas More who, on behalf of the Commons—he was then Speaker of the House—refused the money, was that later on, although not for that reason, he lost his head. That is not an encouraging thing for those who seek to guard the public purse in this House. I can only imagine that the hon. and gallant Member when he goes through St. Stephen's Chapel and looks at that particular picture sees the red cloak, and sees so red that he can see nothing else. With regard to the point at issue, the fact is that the Minister, with the hearty assent of all parties in the Committee, did what we are often told we cannot do in this House. It is often said that the machinery of the House is too slow. That criticism is ill-founded. The question needs to be asked, "Do you think it should be easier to make new laws?" The answer would be, "Yes,' when I am going to make them, and 'No' when the other man is proposing to make them." In this case it was perfectly easy to create a precedent and make the machine run easily, and I am very glad that the Minister has proved that the machine could run easily and do what is a very valuable thing for many men who will be using the land
when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Until the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) I had been rather worried as to the position of the Minister under this new Sub-section, because some of my learned Friends around me had been assuring me that in the event of this Act failing to pass, or our failing to pass this particular new Sub-section, the right hon. Gentleman would be liable to impeachment. The Bill is a long way from becoming law, although it is quite likely that this particular Sub-section may pass. We cannot say it will pass, but there is every likelihood of it, though the Minister has been rather rough in his treatment of the House of Commons and of the Committee upstairs, and there are always dangers ahead of a Minister who behaves in that way. I rise, however, merely for the purpose of adding my protest against ante-dating in this particular case. If there could have been a small Bill dealing with this question, and this question only, the House would have passed it quickly, but that could not be—or rather it was not so, for it could have been so—and, therefore, we have got into this dangerous position.
Another point in connection with this particular Sub-section is that all the blame for this has been put upon the Minister by my hon. and non-learned Friend behind me and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford City (Captain Bourne). That is not right or just, and the whole blame should be put on the Chancellor of the Exchequer who ought to be here to answer these questions. Over and over again the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed this kind of thing to creep into our legislation, and, in common fairness, the right hon. Gentleman should be here to justify this course.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) This section shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines.
The Clause we are discussing gives power to the Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, ferti-
lisers and equipment for unemployed persons. This proposal has been justified on the ground of the urgency of the needs of the unemployed. I think there is a general desire on all sides not to place any obstacles in the way of the unemployed obtaining allotment facilities. This Amendment would limit these proposals to March, 1932, and I think it is right that they should be so limited, because then, if it is found necessary, the grants could be extended by including these provisions in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is provided for by the words "no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines." The Government of 1932 could consider the then state of unemployment, and the need for keeping alive these special facilities. Although it is quite right to provide that the unemployed should have the benefit of these allotment facilities under these emergency powers, I think this is a matter which should come under the supervision of Parliament in two years time. At the expiration of that period, if the Government should feel that there is a case for extending these provisions, they could do so by bringing the matter before Parliament by means of the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am certain that on fuller consideration the right hon. Gentleman will see that this Amendment is unduly restrictive and entirely unnecessary, and that it serves no useful purpose. By Clause 16, the Minister, in accordance with regulations to be approved by the Treasury, may make loans or grants, not to individuals, but to local authorities or to societies, to enable them to assist unemployed persons, only for so long as they are unemployed, with fertilisers, seeds and so on. I can scarcely conceive of a more useful Clause, but, while it is true that the right hon. Gentleman does not challenge the purpose of the Clause, he asks that the period of its operation should be limited to the 31st March, 1932, and that thereafter the Government of the day, if they should desire to continue it, should be compelled to do so through the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The present Government do not take that view. We are asking Parliament to give to the Minister power to do what Ministers should have had power to do long ago—to assist unem-
ployed men to make the fullest possible use of unemployed land in this country. This is only a very small fragment of that work, and we believe that it should not be restricted in any way. We, therefore, resist the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: The speech of the Under-Secretary for Scotland confirms me in my opinion that the Government have entirely made up their minds that the present unemployment, which has more than doubled during the 20 months that they have been in office, must be regarded as a permanent feature of our public life. We on this side of the House do not take that view, knowing that we shall be in office in the autumn of this year, when we shall put forward measures to deal with unemployment, and shall hope and trust that this exceptional Measure will be unnecessary—that it will not be permanently necessary to pour out money in this way to deal with 2,500,000 of unemployed, but that the unemployment figures will be decreasing, and that, possibly after one year or two years, this provision can be usefully dropped out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Under-Secretary did not say so, but apparently he visualises permanent unemployment to this extent, and he says that therefore we must have a permanent Measure to deal with 2,500,000 or 2,750,000 unemployed. Our view is that, if the Government would do something, or leave it to us to do something, this expenditure of public money, whether from the taxes or from the rates, would be unnecessary, and that, after this provision had been put once in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, we should be able to drop it, because there would not be the unemployment that now exists.

Mr. PERRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his promise that, if this provision be placed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, his friends in another place will pass it?

Sir B. PETO: I want to call attention to a very curious statement of the Under-Secretary for Scotland. He said these are powers that he ought to have had long ago, when unemployment was normal. Was it then the normal function of the State to spend the taxpayers' money in providing seeds and manures for all who required them? This extraordinary provision is justified only by the present emergency of unemployment, and
the fact that they are bringing this forward as a permanent provision shows what is their outlook as to the future of unemployment in the eventuality of their continuing long in office. In the normal state of things, if this Amendment were accepted, the provision would not have to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act for more than one year in order to see the last of the present Government, and that would be ample provision for the exceptional unemployment which the country is getting accustomed to as part of what they have to pay for having a Socialist Government in office. We admit the emergency. It is so desperate that even the taxpayer may be called upon to provide seeds and manures so that the unemployed may have something to go on with. But that is not the normal state of affairs. It is not how we expect things to be in the future. If there ever was justification for an exceptional provision being continued only as long as it is required in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it is this, and I can see no reason why the Government resist it.

Mr. DIXEY: I feel some difficulty as to the line of action I shall take if this Amendment proceeds to a Division. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite seldom allow their brains to work very hard in order to concentrate on a serious issue, but I should like to compliment the Minister on the attention he has given, up to a point, to the very serious issues which have been raised in this Amendment. I should like to make some suggestion of a compromise. It is obvious that the very serious unemployment problem is at the back of the Bill. The Minister would not have introduced it had he not been confronted with the very serious issue of unemployment, and the Government can bring forward no other Measure to reduce it than this. I give him my entire sympathy with the way he has conducted a very small Measure for the benefit of the unemployed. But I cannot believe that he is realising that the present state of unemployment is going to continue throughout the regime of the Government. This is an expensive Measure which is going to take money from the taxpayers. If he thinks one year is too short a time to try it, he can, at all events, put some limit to the time the taxpayers have to contribute to what
is going to be a most expensive scheme for them.
After all, hon. Members opposite are spending taxpayers' money—[Interruption.] The Labour party, and I say it with the greatest possible respect, do not care two hoots. The right hon. Gentleman sitting at the Ministry of Agriculture is entitled to the support of the Liberal party. They sit here every day in larger numbers, and they support him in voting hundreds of thousands of pounds of the taxpayers' money to which they have contributed very little. I ask the Minister at this juncture to say to the House of Commons, "I am prepared to give my scheme a trial for so many years." If the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, he need not smile in that superior way.

Dr. ADDISON: I was smiling at the suggestion of the hon. Member that I had so many years' service.

Mr. DIXEY: Let me disillusion the right hon. Gentleman. I regard his tenure of office as by no means certain. At all events, I think he has one chance in this Bill, and he can put his mark upon the agricultural history of the last few days for a definite period. I am trying to be as complimentary to him as I can, and I suggest that a fair compromise in the House of Commons would be a limit of time to prove whether his scheme is right or wrong.

Sir J. LAMB: I regret that the Minister cannot accept the Amendment, and if he continues his present attitude and it is put to the vote, I am afraid that I shall have to vote against him. I want to make it clear why I shall do so. There are two principles involved here. There is one principle of giving necessary assistance to the men who require it for this purpose, that is to say, seeds. I do not think that there is an individual in the House who objects to that principle being applied. What we object to most strongly is the making of permanent legislation for the purpose. The principle we ought to adopt is to retain for Parliament the right of exercising control over the money. The Minister said that there would be a safeguard in control by the Treasury. I object to that quite as much as I object to the other matter. After all, control by the Treasury does not mean control by Parliament. Parliament should not delegate to any financial Department or
Departments control which it should itself retain. Consequently, I shall vote on the ground of retaining control and continuing the existing responsibility for legislation of this description.

Mr. SKELTON: If the provision of seeds and other necessaries had reference to smallholdings and not to allotments, I should not be in agreement with my right hon. Friend. In my view, and I wish to state it quite clearly, the provision for allotments should be narrowly restricted both in amount and time, especially with regard to the unemployed. To an unemployed man, as to anybody else, an allotment less than an acre can only be a toy. It would be no solution of his unemployment. Therefore, to give unlimited scope for expenditure on toys, when what is necessary for the unemployed is the provision of something which, if they do well, will give them a livelihood, will be a waste of time. There might be something to be said for a very temporary expenditure, although I think it would be very little, but it would not be relevant to discuss it now. I think it is unwise to spend money on allotments which are less than an acre in extent.
I am satisfied that expenditure for unemployed persons on allotments should be most strictly limited in time. For that

reason, I support the Amendment. It is no mere fantasy to suggest that an allotment is a toy. There is practically no example of any man being able to make a livelihood out of an allotment. The real problem is the problem of the permanently unemployed man. The report of the Industrial Transference Board shows that 200,000 unemployed miners can never find work again at their own trade. They will not find a livelihood on allotments. I maintain that any money beyond a certain limit spent on allotments reduces the amount that might be spent in settling men on holdings of a size that would give them a livelihood. Therefore, at a time of financial stringency, it is necessary to fix a limit of time in regard to the money that is to be spent in putting men on to what is merely a toy, instead of spending the money in giving them a size of holding where, if they are hard working, they will find a livelihood in place of the livelihood from which they are excluded by trade conditions. I hope the House will regard expenditure on allotments as merely an experiment, and I think my right hon. Friend is very wise in the kind of restriction that he has proposed in his Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 227.

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.


Albery, Irving James
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Alien, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capf. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Athoil, Duchess of
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dixey, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Erekine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bird, Ernest Roy
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Boyce, Leslie
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Ford, Sir P. J.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Briscoe, Richard George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Buchan, John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Butler, R. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Muirhead, A. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Campbell, E. T.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hanbury, C.
Peto. Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Courtauid, Major J. S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.


Remer, John R.
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Rentoul, Sir Gcrvais S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Somerville, D. G. (willesden, East)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Southby, Commander A, R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut,-Colonel E. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major I.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thomson, Sir F.



Savery, S. S.
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Sir George Penny and Major the


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Melville, Sir James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. [York, W.R., Normanton)
Middleton, G.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.


Arnott, John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph


Ayles, Walter
Harbord, A.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mort, D. L.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.


Barr, James
Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hayes, John Harvey
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Benson, G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Birkett, W. Norman
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry


Blindell, James
Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, Wilfrid


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hopkin, Daniel
Palmer, E. T.


Bowen, J. W.
Hore-Sellsha, Leslie
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Bromley, J.
Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.


Brooke, W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Johnston, Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)
Potts, John S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lathan, G.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cameron, A. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Romeril, H. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sandham, E.


Dallas, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Lees, J.
Scott, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longden, F
Sherwood, G. H.


Dukes, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shield, George William


Duncan, Charles
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simmons, C. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntes, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Elmley, Viscount
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Foot, Isaac
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Freeman, Peter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McShane, John James
Smith, w. R. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gill, T. H.
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Stephen, Campbell


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. R.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Marshall, Fred
Sullivan, J.


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.




Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
walker, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Tinker, John Joseph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tout, W. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wise, E. F.


Townend, A. E.
Wellock, Wilfred



Vaughan, David
West, F. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Viant, S. P.
White, H. G.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Thurtle.


Walkden, A. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That further Consideration of the Bill be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Tuesday next, 10th February.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: I ventured to send a note to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I desired to raise a question of finance upon the Adjournment this evening, and I should like to express to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer my sense, and also the sense of hon. Members on this side of the House, at his courtesy in being present at, I believe, some personal inconvenience. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to the rumours which have been circulated today of an impending Development Loan. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of some considerable depreciation in the gilt-edged market, which is no doubt of a temporary character, but it has led to the belief that the issue of a somewhat considerable Development Loan is imminent. This has a very important financial bearing. Obviously, it is a competing factor with any prospect of conversion, but it also has a political significance which will excite interest in all parts of the House, and in no part more than in the quarter, or rather the octave, which is represented on the benches below the Gangway. We are all most interested to know whether there is any foundation in these rumours or not.
For my part, I have very little doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has stood to his guns, and that he has repulsed all inroads upon his financial impregnability, and is still standing firm on all those principles of Treasury orthodoxy which have been inculcated upon many occupants of his office, but have never been received with more native enthusiasm than by himself. But I do not want to stand between the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can he tell us exactly what has happened? It is not for us to judge, still less to pre-judge, the event, but it is for us to ask whether at this moment he has any statement to make to the House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of speaking with regard to the rumours which, I understand, have been prevalent during the closing hours of the Stock Exchange this afternoon, with the result that there has been a fairly considerable fall in most Government securities. In ordinary circumstances it would be, perhaps, a waste of time of the House of Commons to deal with every rumour that spreads about. There are exceptions to every rule, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite justified in raising this matter to-night. There is no intention whatever—[Interruption.] My financial orthodoxy is still in a state of virginity. But this incident shows that rumours can very seriously affect, and detrimentally affect, the position. From this there is a lesson to be learned which I am not going to draw to-night. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are both financial implications and political implications, but I will leave the political implications for some other time.
The policy of the Government, as I have repeatedly stated, and as I stated on the last occasion yesterday, is that we are prepared to foster and encourage every sound and economic scheme of national development, but such schemes will be financed as they have been
financed in the past. There is no idea—it is almost a humiliation to have to say it—of putting forward a spectacular national development loan. Any scheme will have to be, first of all, very carefully considered and thoroughly sifted, and if the conclusion is reached that it would be to the national advantage that such a scheme Should be promoted, then the finance of the scheme will be found in the ordinary way. I conclude by repeating that there is no foundation whatever for the rumour. I hear that it was also associated with conversion operations. That exposes the foolishness of these rumours. I do not suppose that any advice I give to the Stock Exchange will have much influence, but really I would
advise them not to regard as serious these rumours, which usually come from a source that cannot be traced. I repeat that I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has been good enough to refer to those who sit upon these benches, perhaps I may be allowed to say that no one at any time has ever suggested that a large loan should be floated and that the means of spending it should be considered afterwards.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.